Film Vs Digital, the DEBATE

From a recent piece in the NY Times, still available on their movies page:

Others are gravitating toward the digital cameras because of their aesthetic qualities. Dion Beebe, the cinematographer for “Miami Vice,” said that he and the director, Michael Mann, chose a camera from Thomson Grass Valley called the Viper to create a particular look for the movie.

“We made use of the Viper’s amazing depth of field,” Mr. Beebe said. “You’re seeing clearly from two inches to infinity.”

But Mr. Beebe says that film cameras are still superior to their digital brethren for capturing bright sunlight in a more nuanced way, and other cinematographers acknowledge that digital cameras do not have the resolution found in film.
Click to expand...

From two inches to infinity. Now that's really something. I liked what digital brought to the look of "Collateral", the flat, washed out-ness perfectly suited that film's very dark tone. From all reports "Miami Vice" looks simply stunning. So they've raised the bar. I eagerly await the arrival next year of David Fincher's Zodiac killer project, captured digitally. That, too, may be another significant step. Even more than Speilberg, if/when Terrance Malick goes digital, that will be a moment worth marking.
 
Nice job. Congratulations. Capturing those autumnal colors, and the blacks, in that way really brought some atmosphere and presence to your piece. The violence, the strangeness, the intermittent bursts of those rock chords- that was rather punk. Enjoy that HDVX.
 
Jacks, that's really impressive work, especially for a 72hr work flow and shooting 35mm. Congrats.
 
When it comes to low-budget nothing beats s16 except for maybe 2perf 35mm. With the investment of $4000 and lab fees that are far less than the rentals for the Genesis, D20 or even F950 I can create images that when put on DVD rivals big budget productions. This camera is 20 years old (Aaton LTR 54) but with good glass on it the images are identical to what the soon to come 416 will produce and the most impressive thing is that the quality of the result is even better now then when it was new. I´d like to see the day when you can take a 20yo (or even 50yo) digital camera, use quality glass and buy the best tape with the latest tape innovations (like how the advances in filmquality comes from inventing new stock) and create images that rivals the latest, newest cameras.

I think that the new technolgy is great and have nothing at all against digital but I belive that at present time s16 gives most bang for the money. Maybe things will change when the RED camera comes out but I have been to long in the game to actually belive that.
 
Ogrus said:
lol...
what i meant is that Digital is the future.... film will be for nostalgics.....
Click to expand...

It is interesting that everyone is so sure that that is how things will play out. People, however, forget that film has reigned supreme for 100 years and it's not going to be beat by an upstart overnight.

The cost is moot because the industry is not concerned with whether you, I, or anyone else can afford to shoot indie productions on film. Actually Hollywood is probably less likely to accept digital as standard if the bulk of amateurs use it. Film is similar to script writing technique. You must follow the rules or get tossed in the trash. Simple as that.
 
Lakmir0 said:
It is interesting that everyone is so sure that that is how things will play out. People, however, forget that film has reigned supreme for 100 years and it's not going to be beat by an upstart overnight.

The cost is moot because the industry is not concerned with whether you, I, or anyone else can afford to shoot indie productions on film. Actually Hollywood is probably less likely to accept digital as standard if the bulk of amateurs use it. Film is similar to script writing technique. You must follow the rules or get tossed in the trash. Simple as that.
Click to expand...
Own stock in Kodak, do you?
 
Nope. Just realize that in business, the best solution for the consumer is rarely what wins out. If that were the case we would have the best of everything already at affordable prices. An affordable digital cam that exceeds films res and specs would not be good for business on so many levels. Mainly because that wouldnt give you any incentive to buy future models.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top