Film Vs Digital, the DEBATE

The look of film itself has changed quite a bit over the century (people today aren't usually trying to emulate the look of film from the 50s for a feature movie).
Click to expand...

:) i've told people that...digital people clamor trying to make digital look like film, but film people aren't trying to make film look like old school film. compare this decades westerns to the ones made in the 60s or 70s...as you've pointed out things change.
 
You'll know when film is dead when film people try to get that "digital-look". :)

But really, I don't know what the future holds for film and I don't know what it holds for digital. If digital gets better than film, then it does. If it is always one step behind film, then digital will never get better than film. There's too much going on right now to tell. Superman Returns, although a beautifully filmed movie, is in itself a fully digital movie. Not every scene in the movie looked like film and, had they used modern film, I can't help but feel that it would have or could have looked better. Film still has the advantage in the almost infinite ways it can respond to light, if they can just make a digital movie camera that could emulate film in all aspects to a "T", then the battle would be over.

But it isn't, film still has a long way it can go. Just look at all the new films that come out almost every weekend, each one looks different, and no one film will look exactly like the last one did. Also, as novelt has said, the advances in film stocks since the early days is still relevant to today's film stocks. There's always some new chemical process or advancement that can lead to much better looking films and with the help of digital post production, can look even better.

Digital cameras are close, but there's still life in film yet and will be as long as there are people working to advance film stocks and the cameras that use them.
 
PaPa said:
Are we soon facing the reailty that Digital will replace Film in the Movie industry within the next 15 years?
Click to expand...


Yes.

The only people who will be shooting on film in ten years are those that always have, and always will. But in ten years time, most of the 45 and younger crowd will have had expansive experience with DV and Hdv. And the cameras out at that time will be as good as any film cameras of today. All one needs to do is look at the fairly new camera Robert Rodriguez used for Once Upon A Time In Mexico. That's the worst professional hdv is ever going to look, and most people can't tell the difference. In ten years time, I expect dv/hdv to be the rule, not the exception.

As for independent film, DV is already replacing film as the best quality vs price option. As the technology improves at the professional level, the previous top of the line dv and hdv cameras will become the choice for all independents.
 
As long as there are people with old film supplies and equipment they need to sell to students, they will be encouraging young filmmakers to use film and coming up with every reason why it's better, preferred, or even necessary to be taken "seriously".

But it's a crock. Digital is the way to go. Those who say film is still a preferred media just want you to buy their junk so it's not a total loss (and they can use your money to upgrade themselves to digital).

This is just Business 101 common sense. You don't tell people that something is obsolete while you still have lots of money invested in it! You convince them it's wonderful and never going away... while you shop and plan for the new stuff that will make it obsolete.

Think about it.
 
Digital will surpass film in the next 15 years.

Of course film will still be available and aviable option, but very few productions will use it as it will make much more financial sense to shoot solid state.

Just under 5 years ago we were introduced to the Canon Xl1. Almost 6 it was the Sony PD-150

Now we're staring down the tube of The Big Red One and the HVX and the Dalsa and the Genesis ...

This is a 5 year period.

IN 15 years, digital will completely surpass film as the medium of choice for feature filmmaking and it will be a tapeless format.

It just may be within the decade.
 
Speaking of recent films shot digitally (Which I did not know)

http://imdb.com/title/tt0472043/technical

http://imdb.com/title/tt0454824/technical

http://imdb.com/title/tt0362120/technical

http://imdb.com/title/tt0490499/technical

Of course, Superman Return's. These film's are'nt shooting digitally because they're screwing around, they're shooting on it because it works.

Of course RR won't do anything but digital shooting. Same for Lucas (Hack). Anyone who says it will not happen is very naive and not forward looking at all.
 
I agree with John and Grabird. As I stated in my previous post, there's just too many pros when shooting digital, and too many cons when shooting film. It's not even close really.

And studios understand this as well. Instead of a shoot lasting 3 months, it will now last 30 to 45 days, max. That's a big difference. In ten years, it'll be even bigger.
 
I'm gonna have to disagree with the concept that the old, die-hard film producers and directors will continue to shoot film as the DG (digital generation) pushes forward with and into whatever HD systems we can get our hands on.

Save for a few MacGillivray Freeman projects (think IMAX), if you're working in documentary and the pervasive new docu-reality television medium, you are largely or entirely acquiring in HD. Not S16mm, not S8mm and certainly not 35mm.

This is just another segment of the acquisition market that has (somewhat) happily transitioned to digital formats over the superior latitude and resolving quality of traditional celluloid.

Spielberg and the like are in a rapidly aging but vocal minority who resist digital acquisition yet fully embrace digital post and... shhh! a zeros and ones distribution-exhibition channel.

There are just as many Boomers (and older, for that matter) like Coppola, Lucas and so-forth who are pushing the transition forward - whether the infrastructure for a lossless shift is in place or not.

Big-name industry personalities, professional guilds and tradesmen have less control over the shift than you give them credit for.

Film is definitely rolling for now, but rest assured that the majority of the brainstorming, research and development resources at places like Panavision, Arriflex, Aaton, Technicolor and most definitely Kodak centers on the impending shift to purely digital entertainment from top to bottom.

Invest some read time in Eastman Kodak and their greater business model for the past five years and you'll see one thing very clearly: film is going away - more quickly than most of us suspect.

Study the reductions made to Kodak's celluloid-focused management, research and development business divisions in the past 18 months alone. Don't doubt that this company, over all others, has been tracking the trends toward the demise of film for longer than most of us have been working in the industry.

I say we'll be entirely digital in 10 years or less for all mainstream entertainment production (including: theatrical; single-camera television; multi-camera television; documentary; music video; reality; and so on) - done.

e
 
Last edited:
overlandfilms said:
Spielberg and the like are in a rapidly aging but vocal minority who resist digital acquisition yet fully embrace digital post and... shhh! a zeros and ones distribution-exhibition channel.
Click to expand...

This would suggest that even they have no real objection to digital, just that current digital acquisition, ie the scanners of the camera, do not achieve the capture scale of film.
 
Just as with still photography, no matter how much lattitude or rez digital will get, it will never look the same as film. They have different aesthetic qualities, with either being better suited to certain looks than the other, at different times.

The real question (for me) is not one of aesthetics, though, it's one of methodology: put simply, digital is a more accessible, and (financially) liberating medium, and will become increasingly so with time. So, for my purposes, it's a more rewarding medium -- because it allows me to get work done.
 
bklyndv said:
Just as with still photography, no matter how much lattitude or rez digital will get, it will never look the same as film. They have different aesthetic qualities, with either being better suited to certain looks than the other, at different times.

The real question (for me) is not one of aesthetics, though, it's one of methodology: put simply, digital is a more accessible, and (financially) liberating medium, and will become increasingly so with time. So, for my purposes, it's a more rewarding medium -- because it allows me to get work done.
Click to expand...

You bet... but by the same token, when I was shooting 4x5 film (and lusting for a 8x10...) the puny 35mm was just to small and lacked major detail and tone when enlarged... whatever happened to 70mm films... Anyone ever see "Lawrence of Arabia" in 70 mm... and need I say, not a 35mm blown up to 70 mm...

Anyway, things change.
 
I'm gonna have to disagree with the concept that the old, die-hard film producers and directors will continue to shoot film as the DG (digital generation) pushes forward with and into whatever HD systems we can get our hands on.
Click to expand...

Scorsese, Tarantino and Spielberg have all said they will always shoot film. I kind of think those guys have control over their films. Of course in 15 years, that can all change.
 
Only time will tell.

Visual candy like Superman - not to mention all the other HD feature content being realized throughout filmed entertainment - might well catalyze an unexpected and rapid reconsideration by those who weren't already convinced.

Digital is a considerably more stable medium than film and the technology to acquire on it, cut on it and archive on it only improves each and every day.

Film will need much more than a new tabular technology or nominal increase in latitude or color rendition to outpace the myriad advances in zeros and ones visualization.

As I stated before, do some research on where Kodak is headed. Eventually, it will be simply incidental to the folks at Eastman that there are a few hold-outs for celluloid.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1839292,00.asp

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4764453

Economics drive the stockholders, the markets and the technical processes - not nostalgia for a fading medium.

e
 
Last edited:
Ideally, film wouldn't wither under digital's crushing embrace, it would merge with the technology. So eventually the chemical process would be immediately converted to digital information upon exposure, thus using the good qualities of each medium. If you collapse the DI process from a lab to in-camera, I imagine most people would find the happy medium between the two options.


Granted, I'm talking about tech that probably hasn't even been concieved as that small.
 
On my little ass scale:
All I know is, when I have money, I shoot on film...when I don't, digital is my best friend. I do love the way film looks. I really enjoy the risk, focus and excitement of film.

On the big world wide scale:
What ever they finally decide on...we'll live with it.
As long as the image is the best it can possibly be.
 
Digital will surpass film in quality. It's just that simple. In fact, it's already starting to happen. There's an article on the Corpse Bride that states that they chose the Canon still cameras to shoot with not just because it would make life either but, upon comparing footage from them to the best 35mm stop-motion cameras, they found that the digital camera footage was much sharper and looked better. I hear people claiming that they can still spot the digital look. I sure as hell can't. John's own post just shocked the hell out of me when I saw that Apocalypto was shot digitally. I had no idea. I saw the trailer and it looked to have the same type of beatiful cinematography we saw in the The Passion. This looked just as visually impressive but it was digital apparently. People claim they can spot the digital even in such great examples and I'd love to see them put their money with their mouth is but I'm pretty sure that, even if they can now (which I doubt), they won't be able to in ten years.

Now, whether you think film is better or not, the fact is that digital will become technically better eventually. I don't know which has the potential to be better but the fact is that all the major advancments are being made in digital. It will look better sooner or later.

You'll know when film is dead when film people try to get that "digital-look"
Click to expand...

I don't know. More and more I'm seeing film-makers using blown-out highlights and ultra-saturated colors. I think we'll reach I point where we no longer care about the "film" or "digital" look and just care about what looks good.

And yes, it's true that a lot of people still want to use film but more and more of us who have become comfortible with digital will eventually grow up and take over the industry. It's just like with science. It take years for a new theory to become accepted because all the old scientists have to retire or die before people will take the young ones seriously.

Eventually there will be no debate and we'll all shoot digital.
 
I also think digital has it's plusses even if you forget about the qualitative or price aspects.

I mean, assuming I could shooting Super 16mm or HVX200 and money was no object, I'd probably still shoot HVX200. Quality wise, the two are so close to my eye that I don't care. More importantly, the flexibility of the HVX200 (being able to see exactly what I'm getting as I shoot, image controls, instant clip access with P2s, smaller and lighter for less set up time). The only thing that really draws me to 16mm is the higher lattitude.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top