If you want to hear why Christopher Nolan and Hoyte van Hoytema shoots everything in camera and on film, check out our new video! kzfaq.info/get/bejne/nKeHdc6Z18vWcYk.html

Tarantino: Digital is the death of cinema Roger Deakins: Ok boomer

I love Tarantino, but the contrast between Deakin’s measured, considered opinion and Tarantino’s hyperbole is stark.

“It’s about the eye behind the camera, not the bloody technology”

“Dollys are the death of cinema as I once knew it”- random guy in 1938

If roger deakins of all people says he can’t see the difference...it probably isn’t a big deal

The best thing about this is that it's not the typical "old generation vs new generation thing", where the old generation defends their methods against the more practical new ones, instead it's 71-year-old Roger Deakins going with the time and using logical arguments against the younger Tarantino. That is incredibly funny to me.

"It's what's in the frame" perfectly summarizes this whole argument

Bladerunner 2049 was one of the most beautiful movies I’ve ever had the pleasure to watch.

Sometimes it sounds like a religion rather than a stylistic choice.

Deakin is a practical man. His justification for using digital just makes sense to his workflow. Tarantino just talks about film tradition. Deakins knows how to use film but still chooses to innovate on his craft.

I feel like Tarantino is comfortable with that mind set because he doesn't have to deal with all the shit Deakins has to deal with.

Love what Deakins said. Though he shoots digitially and understands there's much latitude to it, he still gets everything right "in camera". This is where most people fail today. They want to get everything done "in post" instead of the other way around. Once I learned to get everything right in camera, filmmaking was much more enjoyable and satisfying and my work actually began to look more professional than what it looked like before. Really, cutting corners is amateur and lazy as hell man.

Deakins’ opinion holds more weight, I believe. Tarantino is being melodramatic.

Turns out the " death of cinema " wasn't the cameras.

I have way too much respect for David Fincher and how he uses digital cinematography to dismiss it. Also digital camera tech has allowed normal people like me to produce great looking images on my own

Deakins just wants to sleep at night 😂

Really cool video. I find it very funny that Tarantino hates digital but said the “hands down best movie” of the last decade was “the social network”. A film shot on digital. Directed by an established filmmaker that’s famous for shooting on digital.

QT lives in the 70s. His entire aesthetic is a kind of recreation of the cinema he grew up with. Not that there's anything wrong with it. And it's not even the main reason cinema is dying.

I feel like Tarantino doesn't give any actual disadvantages of digital in his argument. He just likes film and is too stubborn to see the advantage of digital. I don't think film will ever go away completely. There will always be films for those who like it. But the ease of shooting digitally will allow more people to make movies. It's better for filmmaking in the long run. edit: Nevermind I just finished the video lol

I love how one of the most respected DPs of this century can be so nonchalant about equipment. He knows he can rely on any tool to say anything however he wants to.

Tarantino is a purist because he's a director. Deakins is practical because he's a DOP. The sensor makes all the difference. And digital wins and is easy on the production cost. Coming from a DOP's assistant it makes our work really really easy:) The argument is all about taste so we cannot deny both their opinions. I'd prefer digital any day on a film set. My personal humble opinion.

Deakins is the only one actually giving arguments, Tarantino is very melodramatic and sounds more desperate than convincing

The thing with the whole "illusion" argument, about film being distinctive in that it's creating the illusion of movement, is that it ignores that the same case is with digital. In digital, you have a collection of pixels that shoot light and create the illusion of an image, and there is a similar sequential construct of a sequence of images, built by these pixels, to create the illusion of movement.... and not to mention the sound. Sound recording is also an illusion. You're not actually hearing real humans speak. Recorded sound has its own magic. I notice Tarantino never says anything about sound in his discussions. Therefore, to pretend that this illusion is exclusive to Film is quite disingenuous. Whether we're talking about film, digital or whichever new form of technology is created in the future, they're all different forms of man-man technology to simulate reality. They are all illusions. And thus, they are all magic. Tarantino has simply romanticized one particular form of technology. And this is not new: The same thing happened when the technology of sound first arrived to film and there were some people (such as Chaplin) who had a more conservative attitude, who believed that the magic of film had been killed.

Master of gripping dialogues vs master of eye-gasmic cinematography

Deakins is pragmatic whereas Tarantino is sentimental. There is no argument of who is right or wrong just which type of philosophy holds more weight with you.

I love the way film looks aswell but when I see what Lubezki, Deakins and other cinematographers/filmmakers are capable of with digital cameras it makes me happy that we can *have both* and enjoy them for the advantages and stylistic choises they bring.

Imagine Tarantino and Deakin collaborating on Tarantino's 10th and final film

Interesting how the older man and actual cinematographer (Deakins) is forward looking, practical and gets that it's the storytelling/the artistry behind the camera that ultimately matters, while the younger man (Tarantino) is backward looking, lost in nostalgia, point-blank dismissive, and offers no practical reasons why digital is some hideous abomination. QT is also pretty condescending saying the current generation of established filmmakers is just plain wrong for shooting on digital more than film. You just cannot say Blade Runner 2049 is lessened and contributes to 'the death of cinema' just because it happened to be shot digitally. That's ridiculous Quentin (all respect to his own work). Film and digital are just different mediums contributing to the same cause: good storytelling. The original Blade Runner was shot on film, BR2049 on digital -- yet both are masterpieces that feel like the same amazing world. Yes, lousy films have been shot on digital, but lousy films have also been shot on film -- and that's nothing to do with the formats, but with bad storytelling, acting, writing etc. I don't (and really hope) film doesn't go away, but neither will digital and is here to stay. Neither format will save a lousy story at the end of the day.

Funny how people in the industry have all these debates about film vs digital, camera vs camera and what not , while the average viewer can’t tell the difference between an iPhone and Alexa.

God bless QT but he's going WAY overboard with the hyperbole. "The death of film"? Come on. 90% (if that) of the audience can't even tell the difference. I'm not even sure I could pass the Pepsi challenge and I'm really into movies and cinematography. What would be cool is to get these guys in a room together and watch them debate, although Deakins seems like he's way over it.

The “film look” is sacred for its nostalgia, but digital is closing (or has closed depending on the person) in on cellulose and is capable of more visual authorship with all the info a top-of-the-line sensor can capture. I’m echoing Yedlin’s view, since I agree with him. He makes a great case. It also puts to rest brand allegiance in cameras, assuming its capable enough.

Just seeing how relaxed Deakins is just feels like a massive sign he has something right about his way of thinking about this. Tarantino has a lot to say about it and not a lot of what he has to say is very convincing that we should do it his way.

I do prefer film and I see why Quentin would be so attracted to it, but he's being a bit hyperbolic. High definition digital is great too, and so much cheaper. Shooting on film isn't always an option. It's not the death of cinema to have most films shot that way, but it would be a huge shame if no one carries on the tradition of analogue film.

I'll take Deakins any day. Its about the image... the story.

The Hateful 8 is one of the most beautiful movies I've ever seen. And because it was shot on 70mm it has the capability to be fully Remastered in 8K or even 16K in the future. Digital has a hard cap on resolution. If it was shot in 1080p that will forever be the highest resolution you'll get to experience that movie in.

The magic of movies is not film, but rather the hearts in front of and behind the camera.

Guess it's safe to say Deakins won't be on a project with Nolan or Tarantino lol

I love how Roger Deakins is simply explaining why he prefers digital and Quentin is just shutting on digital. I love some of Quentins movies but none of them have as good of cinematography as a Deakins picture

I can see the romance in Tarantino's words but the pragmatic Deakins wins me over.

Bravo on putting the names of the camera's of each clip shown. Such a nice touch!

I respect the hell out of Tarantino but I couldn't disagree with him more when it comes to this stuff. Deakins could not be more correct when he points out that the only thing that should matter is the eye behind the camera. Shrinking the mechanical BS between the photographer and the image on the other end of the camera is a net good for everyone involved. John Lennon once said, "I'm an artist, if you give me a tuba I'll get you something out of it".

I'm an artist that works digitally and traditionally, and I relate to Deakins in a weird way. For example in Photoshop when I do 2D stuff, I have to keep track of all these damn layers, and it feels like the more I have to keep track of the more stressed I'll be, so because of that, when I work digitally, I really prefer to do paintings, and take a more traditional one-layer approach to it. And when I work traditionally I do mostly inking and pencil work - things that I hate to do digitally - and no painting whatsoever, because it has those intricate variables and difficulties like real film does. So what I'm trying to say is that I agree with Deakins, because what matters the most is not the medium you're using, but the freedom you get and how comfortable you feel with it.

David lynch "I love digital because you can film whatever you want for dirt cheap and no one can say no" Tarantino "pardon me while I pull this ladder up behind me"

I feel like both are right in that there is a certain magic to film images over digital. The sheer entropy of film grains and their development simply can’t be replicated by any digital camera or software, on top of the interesting results when pushing or pulling an exposure in regards to contrast and color. Film is beautiful and painterly and nostalgic. Digital can get extremely close to replicating this (to the point where only camera nerds like us notice) AND it can capture much larger and more consistent images that can not only be crafted into something beautiful, but be kept clean and surgical for use with composite software. Daddy Deakins is absolutely right, they are tools and you should choose your camera based on the look you want or the demands of your shoot, not some purist sense of elitism because you can afford the film stock to shoot 35mm in 2021. Both are insanely influential creators that have certainly shaped many lives, including mine

Tarantino's description of the illusion of movement when filming a movie is the exactly the same in digital. The digital camera is shooting a series of still digital images and playing it back at 24fps gives you the illusion of movement. Now that digital has caught up, and maybe surpassed film, I think the argument is moot. It used to be favorable to shoot film, because it gave you a superior look, but now that look can be achieved in digital. Roger Deakins' films will go down as great cinematography, whether they were on film or in digital. Ultimately, it's the story and acting that matters most, right?

And then there's David Lynch, who made Inland Empire

I agree with QT on this. People nowadays want to shoot it as easy and fast as they can. You could say digital is the tiktok of movies. An old quote goes: «If something is easy to do, it probably isn’t worth doing and most likely won’t last»✌️

I would agree with Tarantino when digital *first* appeared. Film was just instantly visibly superior. But since then, digital technology improved so much that the difference is almost undetectable and more about choice rather than quality. The argument would have been more interesting if it were between two *cinematographers* as opposed between one and a pretentious director. :-)

Tarantino's point was a lot stronger a few years ago but digital cameras have moved on an incredible amount

I just love the film look.

As a still photographer I totally agree with Roger Deakin, you can do more and sleep at night when you get to see your work!

Shooting movies on film is like building a house with a hammer. shooting movies digitally is like using a nail gun. Both work, one is just much more efficient and depending on who the person using the different tools are, the results can still be really bad or really quality.

Deakins is the man. I love the way film looks to but i would argue visually, not a single one of Deakins movies looks worse than tarintinos films. In fact Deakins arguably looks better in almost all cases

to my untrained eye, I have no idea when something is digital or shot on film. I've never thought Tarantino's films looked particularly great, but that's not what I watch them for, with him the focus for me is story and writing. I think his obsession with film is just his own old-school nerdiness. It's like people who insist that vinyl sounds better than CD, I just never noticed that one way or the other. Roger Deakins makes a strong case for digital as a tool for creative expansion that makes sense to me.

Roger Deakin’s Argument : It’s easier and regular people don’t give a fuck. Tarantino’s Argument : I’m a nerd that loves old school film and everyone else should too.

both opinions are fine, deakins is practical while tarantinos is an expression of his poetic sensibilities, both are masters of their craft

Roger be like 'oh I just point the camera, look at the sun, put a lens on and then we have Blade Runner 2049' xD

I gotta side with Deakins. Its what is in the frame. Its a tool to create an ambition. Tarantino's films are undeniable, but even he acknowledges the opportunities it provides to entry level people who share that same ambition. Every tool has a purpose. Some tools have more design than what is needed for a project, some tools are limited in their functionality and need greater ingenuity..but it is just a tool. When you require a specific tool, not because it is designed is needed for the end product, but simply because you want the tool, for the tool itself..then it becomes a crutch. Its no longer a tool, but a habit.

I love how at 4:17 the audience is recording Tarantino digitally on phones while he talks about how he wishes digital filmmaking would end lmao

Thanks for the entertaining juxtaposition of these two movie giants! From a photographer's point of view, I can understand both opinions, although I only shoot digitally professionally. The key is control when shooting, especially when time is limited. The path to the finished photo has remained the same, just more comfortable. But sometimes you still wallow in the old days - waiting for the Polaroid and the relieving moment when the correctly exposed and sharp slide is lying on the light table.

It would honestly be fascinating to have Deakins as the DP on a Tarantino movie in the future, just to see how they'd work together and to see if Tarantino could be convinced of digital's merits, if he even let Deakins do what he wanted. Because it he did he'd instantly get the best looking movie from out of his whole catalogue, which is saying a lot.

Having used film for years I once said I would never go digital. Jump forward a decade and I shoot everything digitally. Personally, ease of use, you can do more with the video footage shot. Really like what Roger said, it's just a tool to create the end result. Totally agree with that.

I could imagine how knowing that you’re actually “using up film” (watching it get used up and you only get to use it once) would put you in a different mindset about making sure what you’re shooting is valuable and a good use of the film. Different than just recording to a memory card

This is a wonderfully edited and informative video, like a video essay that speaks for itself! Although one thing I would ADD is a recommendation to listen to the Team Deakins podcast... Because one thing Deakins brings up whenever the topic of digital vs film arises, and it's oddly opposing to Tarantino's compliments to younger filmmakers able to start on digital that's in the video, is a hesitancy for the future of filmMAKING when digital is the norm as having that digital practicality can remove the attention to detail, urgency, and effort that celluloid filmmaking creates when you have limited stock and limited chances to make magic on set. Which considering Deakins isn't opposed to celluloid, kinda makes it sound like they'd be perfect to make a film together lol.

I prefer film for aesthetic reasons. Here’s an example. Same franchise, same cinematographer. Go look at Pirates of the Caribbean 1-3. Beautiful films. Just beautiful. Deep blacks, nice yellows. Looks like a Vermeer painting at some points. Ok. Now look at Pirates 4. Darius Wolski shot all 4 films. The difference is vast. Pirates 4 was shot digitally. You notice it especially when deep dark blacks are interrupted by a flame like a candle or fire. Another example. The game of thrones pilot. I can pinpoint each & every scene that was shot in film during dark low light conditions(that pilot was shot twice, once with film the other digitally, most of it is digital but they kept a few sequence of the original film version, like Ned & Robert in the crypts & parts of the big dinner). Now I LOVE Roger Deakins. Love him. He’s one of the greats. But it worries me that he prefers the clean, sterile image of Blade Runner(which is admittedly gorgeous & works for that film) to the film grain & colour of Hail Caesar or No Country For Old Men or Assassination of Jesse James. Those are some of the most beautiful images ever captured on film. Except he’s altering them in post. If he’s just capturing the image on digital & not doing any DI on it(which I find hard to believe) then maybe that’s why I find his digital work lesser than his film work. Film is much better than digital in my opinion. Digital is just too “clean”. Everything has a similar look to it now. Watching Home Alone over the holidays it struck me how beautiful the cinematography is. But if they had made that film today? It would look as bland as every other comedy.

It's the death of cinema “as he knows it“. Which is kind of true. But technology evolves, and so does cinema, fortunately.

I am not a cinematographer, but I was involved with recording studios in the 80s and 90s during the transition to digital. These conversations always remind me of the debates that raged almost until the last decade about tape vs digital. As someone who made tape edits with a razor blade I was of Deakins' mind when it came to digital (after the tech matured). The benefits of the analog became less and less while the hassle actually grew. Tape was more expensive and harder to find, and the machines became more and more difficult to service. And what we gained from digital was immense as far as editing and other tools. That being said I alway record through great mics and analog gear into a digital system. We use analog where it most shines still, and that seemed to be the approach of the recent Blade Runner for instance. They used miniatures for many shots, as well as other old school techniques. But they shot on digital.

This is a create conversation and I’m glad I clicked on this video and subscribed

In my opinion, one of the greatest benefits of seeing a film shot on celluloid in a digital medium like a 4K disc or digital projector is that when the film is scanned from the original negative, all the grain one sees is what originated on the negative. When a film is projected on celluloid, additional grain is introduced, even if the print is a second generation away from the negative. So ironically, when a filmmaker like Tarantino champions that his films should be seen on celluloid, digital projection can in some ways represent more accurately what the negative captured. One advantage celluloid has had over digital projection for a long time is in contrast and resolution. But with 4K laser projectors I think that advantage will slowly disappear. Especially considering that 99.99% of all movies shot on celluloid today are finished using a Digital intermediate. Which means that even if celluloid prints are being made, they will be struck from that DI and be limited to the resolution of the DI, which most likely will be lower than the resolution of the film print. If you then add on the extra grain and softness that get introduced from the print I think that a film that was shot on celluloid and then receives a 4K DI will look better on a 4K laser projector than on a film print. But I do believe celluloid has the advantage when it comes to older movies that were finished photochemicly and shoot on large formats like 65mm and VistaVision. Because then the true resolution of film is being taken advantage of (as long as the print doesn't come from a digital restoration of that movie, even 2001 a space odysseys 8K restoration probably don't take full advantage of a 65mm print, but digital restorations has of course other benefits, like damage removal.) After the introduction of the Digital intermediate the full potential celluloid has been lost when it comes to resolution, but has also given the filmmaker more freedom with color grading and special effects. I look forward to the day when 8K,10K,12k DIs are the norm.

Deakins Rocks! Cinema is not only about camera.... its about talents behind the cameras too....

I totally understand both perspectives. Many have made similar arguments about digital versus analogue synthesizers.

Roger deakins really be one of those grandpas who successfully accept the new generation's technologies without being cringe.

Deakins has a point and I agree with these advantages of digital, but I don't believe that digital can reproduce the "cinematic feel" of film. Film photography on film simply looks better. I don't like the "compression" or very perfect look that many of the films shot in digital have. It's a matter of personal taste.

Storytelling has been conveyed from chiseled walls, to animal hide, to parchment, to paper, to projector, to television, to digital drive, to the internet. The evolution for telling a story is extraordinary. Tools to tell a story have constantly changed. The fundamental story itself is what has always been the most important thing. This has not changed for millennia. Tarantino's grip on traditional methods for comfort in nostalgia is detrimental in this day and age. By not embracing the the technological advances in storytelling tools, one is destined to the same fate as KODAK.

One’s a DP the other is a director. That should give a clear answer

One is a director, other is a cinematographer. Of course, they'll have different opinions. Their conflict of thought is what gives rise to a film. It might seem like they are fighting but they actually are on the same side.

keep up this valuable content

I love Tarantino, but he's so categorical on this matter... I mean cmon, we can always push it further back by that logic. Let's go all the way back and say movies are not art then. Only art is what you create yourself with a pencil or a brush. After all, what are you doing shooting a movie? Just pointing a lens towards something aesthetically pleasing but it's all fake, the scene, the actors, the story... everything is fake. I mean, you can always argue that way, be dismissive of things that are different or new. But it doesn't matter really. It doesn't matter wether you used a brush, a film camera or a digital one. It's about the ideas you are expressing and the emotions your are provoking in the viewers mind that is important. Everything else is about the tools you like, know and use to get there. But you can be open, fun and inclusive talking about these things or you can be an ass. He's just being an ass about it, mostly for no reason. Maybe for his ego, as he's putting himself on a higher pedestal than those shooting digital. By that measure, there is always a higher pedestal. But then we're not talking about the art itself anymore. Only some pointless technicalities and it's merits of one over the other.

Change can be hard...especially when it deals with something you love.

Deakins is right on this. You can make film look very, very digital too. Most people have fallen in love more with how people designed their film from a certain time period more than the format it was shot on without them realizing it. Yes, I suppose 65mm is somewhat of a different story. But if we are talking about vista vision or straight up s35. It really doesn't matter too much. There have been plenty of films matching film and digital within the same scene without people being able to tell what is what. I aint no big cinematographer. But I have shot plenty of film. I certainly don't miss it .

Tarantino is an incredible filmmaker but I definitely sit in Deakin's camp with this one. If you have two formats that can both produce the same outcome then why the hell wouldn't you use the one that reduces production costs, takes away the stress of not knowing what you're gonna get, and speeds up the process? It just makes sense.

Perfect example of how some use hyperbole to disguise nihilism as intelligence, while others back their opinion solely on personal knowledge and experience.

I love both. I love watching Dunkirk in 4K HDR.. I love watching SW Rogue One in 4K HDR. Looks different but really good!

Love how Tarantino is anti-digital but is close friends with Rodriguez who pushed it during its early days. They must have had a few spirited discussions about this at some point when they meet. Does this mean that Tarantino had to shoot digital for his segment of Sin City then?

Why is Tarantino even selling DVD, blu-rays or streaming his movies then if he's so attached to the sanctity of film projection?

If Tarantino had a script that Deakins wanted to shoot he would have no problem shooting on film and at the same time the way that Deakins shoots and lights for digital he is probably the only person who could talk Tarantino into doing a digital film.

It's both of their intense beliefs on the matter that really convey their voices through the frame. Never be afraid to be out spoken and passionate about the art you make. There is no right or wrong, only perspectives.

This video is great!

The passion for film stocks is clearly evident in Tarantino. He has a romantic, old-school view of what movies should be, and the experience of it. And we have to all be thankful that there are folks like him that passionately supports older media, otherwise they may go extinct quicker. However, as an art form cinema is about innovation and how to harness it. It’s an industry driven by the changes of times, and tech is a part of that. Deakins is just more pragmatic and open minded about the craft. He knows that digital offers things that film cannot, and that provides unique experiences for the audience and helps drive the industry forward w/o stagnation. People like Quentin, and PTA are rare - but they serve a very critical purpose in the industry. And people like Deakins are equally critical to the industry.

I of course agree with Roger Deakins, but it's very interesting to note that Tarantino's favorite film of the decade was The Social Network, which was shot (beautifully) on the RED Epic. I don't think even he could argue that the cinematography would look any better on film. Beyond my frustration with his bombastic statements, I would actually love to hear him talk about this. That film is shot incredibly well.

At the end of the day, both men more than have the right to critique the art of filmmaking and those of us who are film fans are blessed that they continue to create. Peace ✌🏾

These are two different people with two very different careers. There is crossover sure but totally different goals. That being said an actual conversation between them would be fantastic.

Blade Runner’s colors were all done in-camera!?!? 🤯🤯🤯

I prefer the look of film for sure. I'm perfectly ok with digital projection, but the best looking movies and tv shows for me are shot on film. The first comparison that comes to my mind is the show Heroes. The original run was shot on film, the reboot was digital, and it shows. the reboot looks too clean and boring.

Gracias Matías por este video, por tu entrega y por tu guía. La realidad es que soy Sony fan, y es la que utilizo para mi trabajo, que principalmente es para foto y video de bodas. Saludos y abrazo desde 🇲🇽

I think the images said it all..film is film..the texture is undeniable.

This is like comparing Pearl Jam to Nine Inch Nails. Both are creating music, but with different tools. Pearl Jam's bare guitar riffs and NIN's atmospheric synthesizer sounds usher in different reactions yet both have the ability to convey emotions in a human mind. Both bands are of significant importance to me personally. The ways Trent Reznor and Eddie Vedder make music are totally different. But can I choose one over the other? No. See, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter how art is created. It only matters how it affects you.

The fact that anyone can make a movie today, that's really the death of cinema to me. Death through dilution.

It's really just a tool like Deakins said. Hardcore Henry was filmed on Go Pros because small cheap cameras enabled them to make a first person action movie.