It gets annoying seeing that weird blur or ghosting throughout the entirety of a film. Digital film is a newer invention to make things better for the film industry, but it looks like it takes one stepbback for most directors who use it. David Fincher does a great job with it, but Michael Mann couldn't use it properly to save his life. If you don't know how to use it properly, use film.
shareThats not caused by the director but its indicative of a very tight budget.
Also, digital =/= film.... I guess you mean footage? Or something similar.
Yeah, I couldn't think of another way to separate digital film and film film. It sounded ridiculous by saying "film film", but I mean film as in not digital. But anyway, I noticed it's consistently the same directors to know how to do it. Fincher has used it on all of his movies since Zodiac and they all look good. Michael Mann has used it on every film since Collateral and they all look bad. I just think there is something directors do to give it that look.
shareMost people still use the term film as a verb. It's survived these new technologies that don't actually require film. Everyone knows what you mean.
share(45 second read)
Is it possible that with film taking a longer time to process certain things compared to digital, that filming may have actually given the unintentional benefit of allowing the creators extra time to ensure everything would be set up properly?
Unlike the rest of the time during production, which would be rushed to completion to meet deadlines, the lapse in time meant less sloppy work in the work stage where ideas and techniques could be innovated.
While digital is definitely more convenient, much less time-consuming and overall not as burdensome in going from one step to the next, its effectiveness is hindered by the film industry's ever catering need to handle massive budget projects that offer little flexibility and freedom to work at one's own pace.
It may not be so much as the filmmaker's use of knowledge on technology or differences in the two mediums as it is more to do with mainstream studio-wide practices shaping the flow of tech development itself.
EDIT: Froggy beat me to it in fewer words; kudos.
~~/o/
I know Robert Rodriguez loves digital film because of how much time it saves and how much cheaper it is. But his movies constantly look like crap. Speed and cheapness means nothing to me if it can't be implemented properly.
shareThe thing about film is that every new frame of the film being exposed is a fresh blank slate. But with video the same detector is used for every frame which becomes very noticeable when the camera pans across a bright light and the excess charge carriers still haven’t decayed away and you get an after image. Also when I saw the Miami Vice movie there was a night time skyline scene where the Johnson thermal noise of the detector was very noticeable in the low light condition.
shareThere has to be a way for directors to avoid this. If Fincher can do it, why can't everyone else?
shareOther old directors are just full of themselves and simply refuse to learn. That and being completely surrounded by asskissers (students and assistants) makes them oblivious to the fact that while they're a seasoned director yet a noob in digital tech.
share