ITT: directors who still shoot in real film

Nope.
It was at least partially film.
shotonwhat.com/batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice-2016

Digital surpassed film with 8k cameras. That is the new standard now

Disagree. Maybe if its your first time seeing real film you won't see the obvious flashing whenever a remotely bright surface appears

tbqh I think it depends on the movie. McCabe & Mrs. Miller worked because it was a story about failing expectations/undermining the rugged western man, so the shakier, warmer look helped it.

Whenever I watch old movies in digital it does feel sort of unnatural but that could be placebo

70mm>8k

The guy who shot The Master talked about it.

I had an opportunity to see Stalker's only 35mm print in the world at Yale last year but was sick and couldn't go. That will probably always be my biggest film regret

Film from the 70s is not remotely the same as film today.

There is so much digital color correction and processing that unless you're going for an intentionally "filmic" look like PTA it doesn't make much of a difference. MI5 was shot on film but looked just as good as any other digital blockbuster, just with more grain. It really just comes down to who is shooting on either format and what they bring to it

Fuck i saw that recently in Paris and i was wondering why it was digital
Why is there only one

if you don't know what you're talking about why do you bother posting?

Soviets probably didn't take great care of the materials

PTA shot Junun on digital

Digital is much better. People fear change so you'll get a lot of butthurt arguments for film, but there's nothing about film that can't be digitally recreated

>but there's nothing about film that can't be digitally recreated

the point being it still hasn't for the moment. there are many things in digital that can't be recreated in film

Digital will always have the potential to be better, though I don't think we have the tech or skill to master it in a proper nostalgic analog fashion.

Which is why digital is better. Because digital can be enhanced to look like film, but there's nothing you can do to film without first making it digital anyway.

>thinks uniform pixels are superior to film grain

But for real, it depends on what you're going for. Just because untrained eye can't tell the difference doesn't mean the artist intention won't be comprimised.

There's a reason the wrestler and black swan were shot on 16mm

That reason is called "pretentiousness"

If the eye can't see the difference, then absolutely nothing was compromised. I defy you to prove that statement wrong.

>can't tell 16mil from digital
retard alert

if you can't tell the difference between digital and celluloid you're pretty blind.

The aesthetic of film can't be perfectly replicated by digital cameras even when you digitize it. It DOES matter, otherwise there wouldn't be TV shows who use film (mainly HBO's various miniseries)

Just shoot in digital, color it correctly and add film grain in post and it's basically the same thing

>Because digital can be enhanced to look like film
Not yet.
When it truly can perfectly emulate film, film will die off. Until then, film has a place in the world.

If I remember correctly, Tom Cruise always insists on shooting on film in his movies. Jack Reacher 2 is shot on film as well

Just when I thought he couldn't get any more based.

Oblivion was digital though. But it suits that movie.

Ah, that's right. I could be wrong.

I think Edge of Tomorrow was on film as well, but I'm not sure.

yup
film

shotonwhat.com/edge-of-tomorrow-2014

Did he really?

I didn't have a very high opinion of Cruise based on his scientology shit but the more I hear about him the more i appreciate.

>shoot on film
>use digital color correction

into the trash

Thanks Peter Jackson.
He started that trend iirc.