Anything you can do with film I can do with HD

If the story is told and the general audience reacts the way you want them to, or if they walk away with the emotions or thoughts you want them to, then it doesn't really matter if you made the piece on 35mm or your cellphone.
 
I think he is full of it, plus film just has this feel to it that cannot be acheived with HD. I dont know what it is.... maybe its not even the look, its just this feel...
 
TimurCivan said:
ok ok ok .... auteurs........ Let a DP chime in. there is ALOT you can do with film that cant do with HD. Like chemical processes, Optical printing effects, and yes, 4 more stops of dynamic range that looks both organic, and still razor sharp. NOTHING looks like film. not even red.
Click to expand...


Beat me to it.
 
We make films for audiences, not DPs. I highly doubt the general audience will notice, or even care for the difference between HD and film. My friends are surprised when I tell them the films in Hollywood that are shot on HD.

My semi-trained eye sometimes can't tell the difference between HD and film.

And since it costs so much to buy and process film, and considering the advancements being made in HD every year, and with the new generation learning to shoot with digital, IMO film will be a dying medium with some traditionalists still trying to keep it alive.

I personally think the question soon isn't going to be "film or digital?" but "will film still be around?"

Like everyone said, it's about the story, not how you get there.
 
Last edited:
Jon Starr said:
My semi-trained eye sometimes can't tell the difference between HD and film.
Click to expand...

Same here. I've watched movies that I was sure were digital, but turned out to be 35mm. I think maybe it has something to do with going to a digital intermediate, and then back to film. They wind with a little bit of the smeariness that films like Collateral have.
 
To me this is a pointless argument. Digital is different than film, just like an iPod is different than a tube amp/receiver, sneakers are different than hiking boots, and gloves are different than mittens.

It's no longer about which is better. It's about making the best quality with what you choose to work with.
 
Geesh. This "debate" just won't go away, will it?

Film and video are two different mediums, period. It's like trying to compare whether or not a picture of a house looks better in oils or pastels. The biggest challenge I see is that people try desperately to make video look like film. Guess what? You can't. You can arguably come very close, and in certain situations close enough to pass. But if you want the "film look", then why not shoot film in the first place? Because in the end, no matter how much you make the pastels look like oils, it's still pastels.

Film is not going to go away.

ADD: Looks like Mr. Brennan posted my thoughts exactly while I was typing away.
 
my brother and I went to see Before The Devil Knows You're Dead not knowing that it was shot with the Genesis. There was one shot in the movie when my brother leaned over and whispered "look, that's video!" I told him he was wrong. I didn't believe Lumet would do it. Turns out his last 3 projects have been shot HD!
 
I disagree Cinealma

Film will eventually be a minority. We all shoot on digital purely for cost and time.

Hollywood is no different. It is cheaper to shoot digital and immediate. It is a natural evolution of technology. There's something to digest in digital's timeline ...

It has only been a small handful of years and look at the massive amounts of projects; film / television that are being shot digitally

Yes, film is organic and is pure, but so what ? IN 100 years, when SOMETHING replaces digital, they'll be saying the same thing.
 
J.R. Hudson said:
Hollywood is no different. It is cheaper to shoot digital and immediate.
Click to expand...

Eh, there always needs to be clarification though. It's cheaper to shoot on a DVX, yes. But when you kit out a Viper or something with all the attendant support gear, the cost savings dissipates or even disappears.

If digital acquisition was absolutely the equivalent of film acquisition in quality, and was unquestionably less expensive, then yes Hollywood would transition to it immediately.

We're not at that point yet.

But, as John said, " It is a natural evolution of technology."

We'll get to that point. Look at still cameras, film has nearly disappeared and those of us purists who said "yeah, but digital cinematography is so electronic and film is so organic" now can't tell the difference. Cinematography will inexorably continue its path and yes, twenty years from now shooting on film will probably be an extremely rare event.

As of today, something like 95% of hollywood features are still shot on film. That'll change, but just like HD adoption rates, it's going to take much longer than anyone ever predicted.
 
Oh, I am not saying that the domination of film based studio projects will not change. Quite the contrary. I'm just saying that film will not become this extinct beast in the near future because there will still be a group of people who like to use film for whatever personal reasons. Fifty years from now, it may be a very well be a very small group.

Who knows? Maybe 50 years from now, the studios will be making digital films and it will be the independents keeping Kodak in business. :grin:

But I'll go out on a limb and say that people probably won't be making movies on film 2000 years from now. Just a feeling. :)

Well, unless of course Spielberg lives to be 2000 years old. :thumbsup:
 
Barry_Green said:
As of today, something like 95% of hollywood features are still shot on film. That'll change, but just like HD adoption rates, it's going to take much longer than anyone ever predicted.
Click to expand...

Advancemnets in Video is for some reason slower than in Digital still. I mean a Canon 5D takes photographs that are astounding. its not Portra 64, but its still GORGEOUS.

HD is taking its sweet time though... i think the problem lies in getting 24 high quality pictures a second out of the machine.
 
TimurCivan said:
Advancemnets in Video is for some reason slower than in Digital still.....HD is taking its sweet time though... i think the problem lies in getting 24 high quality pictures a second out of the machine.
Click to expand...

Yeah....I was wondering about that the other day. I think you are onto something...that 24 high quality pictures a second is the hurdle with the technology.

But as time goes on and more and more Hollywood features are shot on digital and the number of digital filmmakers/hobbyists continue to climb I think we'll see a steady improvement with the technology. As the number of customers rise, the number of customers demands rise and the Video makers will have to answer to them lest they lose the war. Before we know it...we'll ALL be able to afford a 4:4:4 camera...imo
 
cinealma said:
Ain't that the truth. I'm sitting here at my desk at one of the top biotech companies in the world, and my desktop is running Windows/Office 2000.
Click to expand...

My wife works for a major PC company. Until very recently she was using a Pentium 2 running 2000. Sad.

As far as digital technology, a large portion of its advancement will come from the fact that kids growing up today will be so used to it. They will view film with a sort of horse and buggy mentality.
 
Jim Brennan said:
As far as digital technology, a large portion of its advancement will come from the fact that kids growing up today will be so used to it. They will view film with a sort of horse and buggy mentality.
Click to expand...

Exactly. in my program and in other film programs at other schools, a lot of teaching is still done on film because the teachers grew up learning with that medium. However, most of us (the newer generation) made our first (and prob more) movies on digital, and there are a lot of film schools starting to accept and even encourage digital.

It will be slow. A lot of filmmakers in hollywood are taught and are used to film and the look that comes with it.

To be honest, if it's done correctly and professionally, sometimes I prefer the digital look. Collateral looked nice to me. But that's just cause I'm used to digital.

You gotta admit though, for indy productions it's a hell of a lot cheaper to shoot on digital.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top