theryaner

​Yep, I totally don't approve of the whole film is objectively better than digital statement either. There's certainly pros and cons to both mediums, I prefer film but I do recognize that it's not a fair statement with today's digital technology to say that it's better.

You should just delete this post because you aren't making any sense. You've been pushing the organic feel of images for years now with anamorphic lenses and praising cameras/lenses that aren't too clinical because they have a "film-like" look, and now you're telling them to stop promoting film stocks for good? What's wrong with giving filmmakers the option of using their preference of image acquisition, digital isn't going anywhere so this news will have ZERO effect on what you're doing. Also, you don't see the benefits of meticulously planning and visualizing a scene when working with film's limitations? Movies these days are shot so haphazardly and sloppy because people have an infinite amount of recording time and a ridiculous amount of flexibility in post to fix their mistakes later. I personally work better under limitations, shooting raw on the BMPCC with 20 mins per card kinda' reminds of film so it makes me work more carefully. Anyway, it feels like you're making a stand against film just to have an excuse to write something.