Film Vs Digital, the DEBATE
- Thread starter PaPa
- Start date
Greggl
Well-known member
Its already happened... but its gonna take a few more years to amortize the
final round of film gear... then for a bit, film will be cheaper than digital cause
some deals will be too good for studios to pass up. Thats on the aquisition
end. Distribtion is a bit trickier.
We still dont have a business model that gets the bulk of theatres switched
over for distribution. Thats the last piece of the puzzle.
final round of film gear... then for a bit, film will be cheaper than digital cause
some deals will be too good for studios to pass up. Thats on the aquisition
end. Distribtion is a bit trickier.
We still dont have a business model that gets the bulk of theatres switched
over for distribution. Thats the last piece of the puzzle.
It's interesting - as of recently digital is just starting to be used for non specilicized productions - ie 'Click', 'Zodiak', 'What love is', 'Apocolypto' etc. - but before that in the world of large budget hollywood production digital was used on a much more limited basis and almost only on speciliclized productions - ie using digital to shoot a production that takes place mostly at night and benefits from digital's ability to capture in low light situations - ie 'Collateral' or for large scale green screen/cgi productions like the 2nd star wars trilogy.
But now it seems digital is being used on productions that very well could have - and might have been cheaper to produce on film. Most productions that shoot digital as of recently chose to do so because of Aesthetic/ WorkFlow Reasons - not because of cost -- the only other reasons I can think of is projects that wanted to be progressive and thus chose to shoot digital. Now this small move to digital is not indicative of an immediate large scale move to digital on the part of the industry but I do beleive that it does show that digital is coming along.
But at the moment there is no solid workflow for digital - the are no standards - it is a rebel medium. Hell, the DI process for film is still a somewhat new thing and is not [completley] standardized.
But when you think about the fact that the 1st HD Cinema camera was introduced in 99' you really can respect how fast digital has progressed as a serious cinematic medium and it really foreshadows digital's exciting and progressive future.
That being said - Film will never "die" imho. Film is beautiful. I think there is no question that digital will eventually become the "majority" medium at some point in the next 50 years - probably in the next 25 - but who knows.
As a young filmmaker - I will use what ever medium I see fit for a particular production - maybe both ...
BUT as I was saying - there are not yet standards for digital - which will keep it from being adopted on a widespread level until it is standardized - that and the fact the technology is so new there are still some serious disadvantages when it comes to digital cameras - like size - try going handheld with the Genesis without having a hernia!
But now it seems digital is being used on productions that very well could have - and might have been cheaper to produce on film. Most productions that shoot digital as of recently chose to do so because of Aesthetic/ WorkFlow Reasons - not because of cost -- the only other reasons I can think of is projects that wanted to be progressive and thus chose to shoot digital. Now this small move to digital is not indicative of an immediate large scale move to digital on the part of the industry but I do beleive that it does show that digital is coming along.
But at the moment there is no solid workflow for digital - the are no standards - it is a rebel medium. Hell, the DI process for film is still a somewhat new thing and is not [completley] standardized.
But when you think about the fact that the 1st HD Cinema camera was introduced in 99' you really can respect how fast digital has progressed as a serious cinematic medium and it really foreshadows digital's exciting and progressive future.
That being said - Film will never "die" imho. Film is beautiful. I think there is no question that digital will eventually become the "majority" medium at some point in the next 50 years - probably in the next 25 - but who knows.
As a young filmmaker - I will use what ever medium I see fit for a particular production - maybe both ...
BUT as I was saying - there are not yet standards for digital - which will keep it from being adopted on a widespread level until it is standardized - that and the fact the technology is so new there are still some serious disadvantages when it comes to digital cameras - like size - try going handheld with the Genesis without having a hernia!
Last edited:
MiniDV cameras have been around for a "looong" while and yet there are quite a few people that still use 8mm. It tells you something. Film is never technically going to die just like the advent of cheap digital still-cameras never managed to kill off still film-cameras.
I personally prefer digital though, if for nothing else then just its manageability (editing, CGI etc)
P.s: Why not turn this into a poll?
I personally prefer digital though, if for nothing else then just its manageability (editing, CGI etc)
P.s: Why not turn this into a poll?
thematthewbone
Well-known member
I think eventually film still cameras will become a novelty just as vinyl records have. People still buy them because music purists feel it is the ideal way to hear music. The same will be for still photography and eventually maybe even film. DV is just cheaper and easier to manage in theory than film is and I think eventually it will phase it out. Never entirely but eventually the majority of major movies will be shot on some sort of digital format. I think the better question is what digital medium is the future.
HDCinema25
Active member
I still believe that it is a matter of aesthetic choice. Some projects may be better suited in HD and others might be better in film and some with both.
Kev
Kev
PaPa
Major Contributor
now my two cents
the reason i bring this up is because, well, A) ive been accepted into film schol which is, this year, adapting their curriculum to include introduction to digital film.
and B) i returend from a trip to prague about a month ago, where i visited barrandov studio's in prague. They were currently building sets for the new 007 movie, Casino Royal, and i had a good hour talk with a few of the techies, talking to the mabout the digital versus film.
one thing was straightened up for me, and you might as well all realize this too : Film costs **** all for the feature films. It is soo low in their budget scale that they couldnt care less about the cost. Alot of film is also given for promotional purposes in credits and other things ilke that, this i didnt know about.
also, they are using 5 HD cams with 35MM adapters lol, the really expensive ones that move the GG randomly because apparently thats the only way to get realistic edges from a digital picture and eliminate huge grain and patterns.
So yeah, i agree with what you said, Fugitive, but mini DV was never brought out in hopes of achieving a larger film making populas. But since the huge boom of videographers, i think in the passed two or three years the industry is seeing how huge of an impact digital is making. This is pushing companies, like RED, to bring outtheir cameras that shoot at 4K ( same as the ones shooting for the new 007 movie ) yes their using 4K lol. cool huh?
But now, more than ever, there is reason to start pushing forward the digital troopers. And were seeing if through this very forum all the time.
i read an article on how all cinemas in australia were being replaced ( film projectors by digital projectors )
but yeah, lotsa stuff up and ocmin for digital. Maybe new cameras will integrate 35mm adapters in them, making the indi film maker higher production values and encourage the digital market!
the reason i bring this up is because, well, A) ive been accepted into film schol which is, this year, adapting their curriculum to include introduction to digital film.
and B) i returend from a trip to prague about a month ago, where i visited barrandov studio's in prague. They were currently building sets for the new 007 movie, Casino Royal, and i had a good hour talk with a few of the techies, talking to the mabout the digital versus film.
one thing was straightened up for me, and you might as well all realize this too : Film costs **** all for the feature films. It is soo low in their budget scale that they couldnt care less about the cost. Alot of film is also given for promotional purposes in credits and other things ilke that, this i didnt know about.
also, they are using 5 HD cams with 35MM adapters lol, the really expensive ones that move the GG randomly because apparently thats the only way to get realistic edges from a digital picture and eliminate huge grain and patterns.
So yeah, i agree with what you said, Fugitive, but mini DV was never brought out in hopes of achieving a larger film making populas. But since the huge boom of videographers, i think in the passed two or three years the industry is seeing how huge of an impact digital is making. This is pushing companies, like RED, to bring outtheir cameras that shoot at 4K ( same as the ones shooting for the new 007 movie ) yes their using 4K lol. cool huh?
But now, more than ever, there is reason to start pushing forward the digital troopers. And were seeing if through this very forum all the time.
i read an article on how all cinemas in australia were being replaced ( film projectors by digital projectors )
but yeah, lotsa stuff up and ocmin for digital. Maybe new cameras will integrate 35mm adapters in them, making the indi film maker higher production values and encourage the digital market!
JimStrauss
Active member
I think if we all had a choice between film and digital to use at our disposal, the majority of us would select to shoot with film.
Film will never die out, within the next 20 years, advances will be made and film will be back in a major way.
I think right now why we don't see more directors going with digital is because DPs aren't comfortable working in that medium. The more and more DPs get educated about digital, the more we'll see digital films being made.
The good thing about digital cameras is that anyone can make a movie and the bad thing about digital cameras is that anyone can make a movie.
Film will never die out, within the next 20 years, advances will be made and film will be back in a major way.
I think right now why we don't see more directors going with digital is because DPs aren't comfortable working in that medium. The more and more DPs get educated about digital, the more we'll see digital films being made.
The good thing about digital cameras is that anyone can make a movie and the bad thing about digital cameras is that anyone can make a movie.
just this year kodak posted a tremendous loss because film is no longer being used for x-rays...nearly 99% is digital. so they had to restructure to make up for that loss...digital will replace film.
how long did it take for vinyl records to die off? what music company releases tapes (and i mean albums, not blank tapes)?
the cost of film: a 100 foot roll is about $55 and that lasts about 1 minute. so imagine "cold mountain" had 597,000 feet of film - that's $29,850,000. that's just the film...now add developing, other prints, etc. and the costs go up. i know "cold mountain" was edited in FCP (so they saved money there) i was just giving a sample of the cost.
now compare the cost of DV and/or P2 cards...i seriously think digital is way cheaper than film
how long did it take for vinyl records to die off? what music company releases tapes (and i mean albums, not blank tapes)?
the cost of film: a 100 foot roll is about $55 and that lasts about 1 minute. so imagine "cold mountain" had 597,000 feet of film - that's $29,850,000. that's just the film...now add developing, other prints, etc. and the costs go up. i know "cold mountain" was edited in FCP (so they saved money there) i was just giving a sample of the cost.
now compare the cost of DV and/or P2 cards...i seriously think digital is way cheaper than film
PaPa
Major Contributor
JimStrauss said:
im not sure what you mean when you say " Film will never die out, within the next 20 years, advances will be made and film will be back in a major way"
Film has been in the process for decades and decades.
In terms of advancement, i think we have seen close to the best results possible. But even if it were to become better, in whichever senes your tihnking ( cant think of any myself ) the result of the picture might change, but the medium wont, i.e. film stock, cutting, digitizing.
On the other hand, i think digital, within the next 20 years, is going to be very exciting in terms of all the new technology that has almost limiteless potential because it is digital.
and jim, not to pick on you, but the whole " good thing is everyone can make a movie, bad thing is everyone can make a movie "
i think the same thing can be said for more than half of the stuff we see in theatres. whch are crap.
yes anyone can makes films, but unless its approved by the board of approvers, whatever htir names are, and get the proper funding and advertisement, it wont be hitting the movie theatres. But think of all those film makers that should have films in the theatres, more people will get opportunity to make films, not just the motion picture associations, more money for film making industry, more variety, and maybe better films!
Last edited:
novelt said:
Actually - 597,000 / 100 = 5970 ----- 5970 * 55 = 328350 ----- so with assuming your numbers are correct then the film for cold mountain cost 328,350.
Unless you were talking about the cost of release prints.
In any case motion picture film emulsions are improving and changing.
AND fyi Large Budget productions would not be choosing digital over film because of cost - in the greater scheme of their budget - it does not make one bit of difference to them.
The reasons why they would choose digital is because of Asthetic reasons or Workflow or both.
PaPa
Major Contributor
novelt said:just this year kodak posted a tremendous loss because film is no longer being used for x-rays...nearly 99% is digital. so they had to restructure to make up for that loss...digital will replace film.
how long did it take for vinyl records to die off? what music company releases tapes (and i mean albums, not blank tapes)?
the cost of film: a 100 foot roll is about $55 and that lasts about 1 minute. so imagine "cold mountain" had 597,000 feet of film - that's $29,850,000. that's just the film...now add developing, other prints, etc. and the costs go up. i know "cold mountain" was edited in FCP (so they saved money there) i was just giving a sample of the cost.
now compare the cost of DV and/or P2 cards...i seriously think digital is way cheaper than film
those number sound about right, and it sounds like a lot of film. but i very specifically remember the techies at the studio drilling in my brain ( cause i was very pro digital ) using the excuse we should switch caues of cost of film and stuff, and they made it very clear that most motion pictures worry next to nothing about cost of film. weird. but i guess it depends on the budget.
JimStrauss
Active member
[SIZE=+0]I'm just saying, right now everyone is talking about digital and how film will eventually die out. In the next 20 years, I think advances in film will be made and it won't die out as people predict it will. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]Believe me, I'd love to shoot on film more than digital if I could afford it. Which leads me to my question: Are people's opinions on film v digital based on cost or are they based on what they feel can be better accomplished by using digital over film? [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]Believe me, I'd love to shoot on film more than digital if I could afford it. Which leads me to my question: Are people's opinions on film v digital based on cost or are they based on what they feel can be better accomplished by using digital over film? [/SIZE]
PaPa
Major Contributor
i would really like to know what you mean when you say advances in film?
i can tell you right now advances in digital, and were currently going through them
35m madapters out the wazoo
HD cameras shooting at HD, 2K and 4K
Already digitized.
More light sensitivity ( especially in the low range )
no football fields of film
more compact cameras, lighter weight, easier transportation
dont have to worry about exposing negatives. which yes can happen and sadly ruins everything. ( ive seen it happen on set lol suckas )
and in terms of the film look? Well these adpters have been gunning out for about two years now, and already the increase of relative film look has increaesd twenty fold, were now looking at materials for light transmition, best Bokeh, sharpness, oscilating GG, vibrating, spinning, static, all for different looks.
just not sure where 35mm has left to go? got any insight?
have to go mowe the lawn, but ill bb.
i can tell you right now advances in digital, and were currently going through them
35m madapters out the wazoo
HD cameras shooting at HD, 2K and 4K
Already digitized.
More light sensitivity ( especially in the low range )
no football fields of film
more compact cameras, lighter weight, easier transportation
dont have to worry about exposing negatives. which yes can happen and sadly ruins everything. ( ive seen it happen on set lol suckas )
and in terms of the film look? Well these adpters have been gunning out for about two years now, and already the increase of relative film look has increaesd twenty fold, were now looking at materials for light transmition, best Bokeh, sharpness, oscilating GG, vibrating, spinning, static, all for different looks.
just not sure where 35mm has left to go? got any insight?
have to go mowe the lawn, but ill bb.
those that can't afford film they will go digital ...
for the "average" hollywood film at 60million + = film cost are low( 300-700K) , actor/actress cost 10-20mil each , average below line crew cost 3 mil .. hollywood has no problem paying for FILM cost and if it goes up 10% they pay it !! .. note that hollywood will do/go where ever ( in world) they can save $$ on labor cost !!! which crew that live in LA or NY can tell you all about it ...
for a indie budget of 1mil film cost are high ... 10% increase could be reason to switch to digital ... hollywood big budget shows can choose what to shoot on .. small budgets want to go film because there's isn't a alternative ( looks as good as film) out there yet that is within THEIR budget .. GENISIS camera is very $$ & post is $$ .. Viper & workflow seem to be aimed more at high end projects .. standard Sony cinealta is OK BUT but buttt ...
sooooooooo as the newer camera's come out ( SI , RED ) that may put digital closer to FILM look and the workflow should be affordable for smaller budgets ..
film & digital will go hand in hand for many years down the line ...
for the "average" hollywood film at 60million + = film cost are low( 300-700K) , actor/actress cost 10-20mil each , average below line crew cost 3 mil .. hollywood has no problem paying for FILM cost and if it goes up 10% they pay it !! .. note that hollywood will do/go where ever ( in world) they can save $$ on labor cost !!! which crew that live in LA or NY can tell you all about it ...
for a indie budget of 1mil film cost are high ... 10% increase could be reason to switch to digital ... hollywood big budget shows can choose what to shoot on .. small budgets want to go film because there's isn't a alternative ( looks as good as film) out there yet that is within THEIR budget .. GENISIS camera is very $$ & post is $$ .. Viper & workflow seem to be aimed more at high end projects .. standard Sony cinealta is OK BUT but buttt ...
sooooooooo as the newer camera's come out ( SI , RED ) that may put digital closer to FILM look and the workflow should be affordable for smaller budgets ..
film & digital will go hand in hand for many years down the line ...
Greggl
Well-known member
All the motion picture camera developers are developing or already have digital systems.
Arriflex, Panavision (with multiple HD systems), etc.. all the high end video camera producers are working on systems to compete as well... some in conjunction with
said 'film' solution suppliers.
We've pretty much been left with two producers of motion picture film at this point.
We'll see if Kodak can even retool to survive.
The big hurdle that is RAPIDLY being leaped over is the apprehension of DPs and
Directors. What pushed most of them over the edge is the immediate verification
and playback capability that comes with digital formats. If the visual quality is
there.. which it is.. and the reliability is.. which we also have with proven, completed
films.
The cost of film vs digital when you're looking at film stock/processing, etc is
a miniscule portion of any hollywood budget... but a single reshoot can cost
more than a films entire stock budget
Hehe.. I just bid out a fix for a single shot with a messed up optic that was
causing some ghosting. On an HD shoot, they would have caught it instantly.
They are probably going to reshoot as even with a digital fix, its not gonna be
100%. This happens all the time. A large portion of my income comes from
scratch removal and the like
Arriflex, Panavision (with multiple HD systems), etc.. all the high end video camera producers are working on systems to compete as well... some in conjunction with
said 'film' solution suppliers.
We've pretty much been left with two producers of motion picture film at this point.
We'll see if Kodak can even retool to survive.
The big hurdle that is RAPIDLY being leaped over is the apprehension of DPs and
Directors. What pushed most of them over the edge is the immediate verification
and playback capability that comes with digital formats. If the visual quality is
there.. which it is.. and the reliability is.. which we also have with proven, completed
films.
The cost of film vs digital when you're looking at film stock/processing, etc is
a miniscule portion of any hollywood budget... but a single reshoot can cost
more than a films entire stock budget
Hehe.. I just bid out a fix for a single shot with a messed up optic that was
causing some ghosting. On an HD shoot, they would have caught it instantly.
They are probably going to reshoot as even with a digital fix, its not gonna be
100%. This happens all the time. A large portion of my income comes from
scratch removal and the like
PaPa
Major Contributor
score!
well, kinda score, im starting thi fall at Mel Hoppenheim School of Cinema: Film Production at Concordia University in Montreal.
( anyone heard of it? )
But as i said they are starting to introduce digital video so hopefully well see some of that stuff. But technically speaking, alot of things will be virtually the same, lighting, sound, lenses, all those things remain true to film making, just the medium being used. but tahts only a small portion of Movie making.
well, kinda score, im starting thi fall at Mel Hoppenheim School of Cinema: Film Production at Concordia University in Montreal.
( anyone heard of it? )
But as i said they are starting to introduce digital video so hopefully well see some of that stuff. But technically speaking, alot of things will be virtually the same, lighting, sound, lenses, all those things remain true to film making, just the medium being used. but tahts only a small portion of Movie making.