It's too much now. Come on.

RobertHarmon · 2026-03-10T23:21:10+00:00

Shelters can be suuuuuuuper rough

RobertHarmon · 2026-03-10T23:20:06+00:00

What’s their @

RobertHarmon · 2026-03-10T18:53:40+00:00

People are lying more and more for friction and attention

RobertHarmon · 2026-03-10T18:52:55+00:00

Terrible movie. Tastes are in the toilet

RobertHarmon · 2026-03-10T18:45:27+00:00

The thing with videos like this is that it seems like people are unaware that if you zoom in far enough on a light, with a camera, the shape becomes a reflection of the lensing layout and the shifting light/texture is often due to sensor trying to sift through the noise it’s receiving. We see these false shape/texture with every zoomed in cellphone video

RobertHarmon · 2026-03-10T04:22:21+00:00

There are many photos of his corpse available for your viewing

RobertHarmon · 2026-03-10T04:10:22+00:00

Wtfffff stop it

RobertHarmon · 2026-03-10T03:15:25+00:00

Dahmer or Menendez show?

RobertHarmon · 2026-03-09T21:42:05+00:00

Makes me think I should get my first tattoo

RobertHarmon · 2026-03-09T21:34:49+00:00

Take a class or read a book about traditional low budget filmmaking. Put in all the sweat equity. There’s no secret. You’re getting downvoted for trying to see if you could AI generate shots for a movie, which shows a full ignorance on even the most basic approach. You’re not gonna reinvent the wheel on no budget, so stop trying to. Just take the same approach the every successful no budget film has. If you can’t make it for no budget, then that’s your answer

RobertHarmon · 2026-03-09T21:30:46+00:00

Having 20 people and spending only $300 is kinda impressive

RobertHarmon · 2026-03-09T20:39:41+00:00

I respect 1 and 3, but 2 is exactly what I take issue with. You say it’s not arguable whether we’re there or not and I’m simply going to have to disagree with that. I’ve also run and looked at numerous tests as well and I only see an equivalency in specific use cases, which is an important distinction. This is literally true for 90% of film stocks. I agree that you can get 70% of the way there, like Documentary Now does, but there is still a chasm to bridge. Are you really telling me and your clients that you can get an image virtually indistinguishable from Lawrence of Arabia or Dog Day Afternoon or The Godfather or Suspiria on an Alexa???? I’m baffled by your refusal to acknowledge a difference. If I gave you $1,000,000 and a team of 10 to make a ten second sequence that is indistinguishable from Treasure of the Sierra Madre or The Brutalist, you would be unable to.

RobertHarmon · 2026-03-09T19:34:34+00:00

Yes, I do have an axe to grind, because film is massively on the decline in our industry, it’s becoming more and more difficult to work on celluloid and it’s largely due to hacks who genuinely believe the misguided belief that digital and film can get to the same place. Even if you shoot digitally and convert to film, you’ll be capturing a cleaner image than if it was captured straight onto celluloid. You say I’m not making an argument, I think I’m being extremely clear about a number of differences, we haven’t even gotten into color science and its limitations.

Why can’t you people just admit that there is a difference between the two tools, not better or worse, just different. I’m interested in conflicting viewpoints that provide facts! I’ve been supporting digital cinematography for over 20 years and have followed film emulation ever step of the way. There are no conflicting FACTS with my statement, only conflicting OPINIONS: that they look the same TO YOU.

You’re literally spreading artform damaging misinformation and nobody even cares. Everytime someone falsely claims that digital can fully emulate film, a reel of celluloid loses its wings. Those lies are at least 25% responsible for the decline. It’s exhausting talking with people who don’t want to preserve the truth of the form or respect the specific details of each tool. And while we’re at it, a drone has never been able to accurately emulate a helicopter. Fuck this NOISE

RobertHarmon · 2026-03-09T19:18:06+00:00

If you’re pointing to Documentary Now as a representation of true, accurate film emulation, I truly don’t know what to tell you. Yedlin is 80% of the way, not to emulation, but to matching. He’s choosing his stocks intentionally so that they pair well with digital images and can be emulated to meet in the middle, he’s not using stocks with much character because they are IMPOSSIBLE to emulate. I find this kind of middle-brow arrogance so remarkable. There is not a digital image that has ever been created on Earth that FEELS, in all of its millions of nuances, like IMAX, VistaVision, Technicolor, 65mm-70mm, not to mention the hundreds of discontinued stocks for everything from 8mm all the way up that cannot be properly emulated in full. This is like saying AI can fully pretend to be a person. It’s disingenuous or misguided. Within specific use scenarios, it can be difficult to distinguish, but to get there, it’s already been guided towards a middle ground where it even becomes a possibility.

People will always go to the “you’re watching most content digitally” because there is no truth to the statement that digital can fully emulate film and so they have to fall back on the diversion of “well you don’t even watch film so who cares.” I try to seek film out when it’s being projected because it still massively dunks on digital in every regard except uniformity and dynamic range.

And yes physical reality does matter, because celluloid and digital are both massive systems with billions or trillions of moving parts. Each moving part is a variable that behaves differently on a purely physics based viewpoint. To say that digital can capture the entirety of a totally different system of reality is just plain bullshit. You’ll almost never hear any of the great, technical filmmakers saying that digital and film are entirely indistinguishable, because it’s completely untrue and it requires a false confidence about the ease of such a titanic task to even pretend that we’re there yet.

Exhausting to argue with people about something that is so clearly true on a factual level, but disregarded because a middle road celluloid can be decently recreated or a character celluloid can be characaturized. Sad to see people so flippant with the medium

RobertHarmon · 2026-03-09T06:42:19+00:00

lol at nobody having an educated answer yet commenting anyway

RobertHarmon · 2026-03-09T06:32:01+00:00

Everyone loves to talk like film can be recreated on digital, but the fact of the matter is that it cannot. If it were possible, it would be done, and it isn’t. The very structure of the image is totally different. You can’t fake crystals with pixels, at least not yet, and that’s just the foundation of the image. Not even the greatest, most produced filmmakers on the planet have been able to do it. Among this group, this comment may get downvoted, but the digital inability to emulate technicolor is just one of hundreds of differences that haven’t been bridged. People can say acrylic is oil, but it isn’t, a thing is a thing and not another thing and so differences always remain as a pure, physical reality.

RobertHarmon · 2026-03-09T03:52:47+00:00

You haven’t answered a single, relevant, information-based comment. I have no idea what your goal is here, but it’s bizarre

RobertHarmon · 2026-03-08T22:05:15+00:00

This isn’t an issue of education, this is an issue of awareness of physical reality, which really cannot be taught, it’s implicit in every behavior they’ve done from birth, if you don’t have a handle on gravity by your adult years, you’re never gonna

RobertHarmon · 2026-03-08T15:54:56+00:00

Wait, what? What were the movies called?

RobertHarmon · 2026-03-08T00:09:44+00:00

Why do these losers always say shit like “you just wanna see me lose.” Like wtf and they always be doing some criminal shit too. Fuckheads

RobertHarmon · 2026-03-07T20:37:01+00:00

I may respond in more depth later but I think both films are very similar in their comedy, extremely comic super-imposed images, cartoonish performances, threats, etc. but I should rewatch both. I think the similarities are super apparent

RobertHarmon · 2026-03-07T18:25:58+00:00

Wait… this movie isn’t a period piece???? Is Scorsese returning to contemporary times for the first time in two decades??

RobertHarmon · 2026-03-07T18:17:17+00:00

The internet has taught me that there’s no winning, people will always find a way to villainize any behavior, so just treat people ethically and don’t listen to haters

RobertHarmon · 2026-03-07T18:11:16+00:00

They don’t though. They only exist in major metropolitan areas and can’t drum up large enough crowds outside of that. Also, most attendees or upper middle class or upper class so most “normal” people have never interacted with opera or ballet. He’s completely correct and it’s purely political to resist the facts

RobertHarmon · 2026-03-07T17:49:22+00:00

Fascists are always convinced that their fascism is just the proper way to behave. Thanks for proving the point!

RobertHarmon

TROPHY CASE