Observation about filmmakers going digital

[roxics]

My favorite filmmakers growing up were George Lucas, James Cameron, Sam Raimi, Ridley Scott and later on by the 90s others such as Peter Jackson (Meet the Feebles/The Frighteners and later LOTR) and David Fincher (because I'm one of the few that actually liked Alien 3 among his other movies).

What I find interesting is that the vast majority of these guys have moved on to digital. Interestingly enough, mostly RED cameras as well.

I have to ask myself, why is it that these guys, mostly old timers in the industry now, have moved on to digital? You'd think that if anyone was still demanding to shoot film it would be these older guys who made some of their best work with that medium. Spielberg has stuck with film but even Scorsese has become format agnostic.

The only thing I can think of is that most of these guys never really liked film. I think that's apparent with Lucas jumping to digital as quickly as he could and Cameron remastering Aliens by taking out all the grain. They like telling stories with moving images but never cared for the medium of celluloid itself.
Which means that these guys are story tellers first and foremost. That's my guess anyway.

As I watch newer scans of their older films I see the resolution, color and even a more stabilized image. The look remains familiar but the image is definitely more digital-like as a result of the higher quality digital scans. I can only imagine this is what they were all after to begin with. That while many of us cherish some of the defects of celluloid and celebrate it for its ability to suspend our disbelief, these guys must have always been after an image that was more digital looking, but weren't able to fully achieve it until now.

I grew up mostly watching their films on VHS or in the theater off a print, so my impresson was that's what they were always after. It isn't until now I realize that's probably wrong. Which leaves me in a strange position. These guys influenced me early in my life. They influenced me to want to get into filmmaking myself, yet that film-like image they produced which caused me to want to imitate it, is not what they seemed to be after themselves.

So it leaves me in a position where I have to ask myself a couple questions; if my favoite filmmakers who influenced me to become a filmmaker have moved on to digital because that's what they were always after, then does it make sense for me to desire a film look based off a misrepresentation of their work? Is it wiser for me to embrace what I witnessed in my youth or instead aim for what they always intended?

It's not that my intension is to be a copycat. It's to get at the heart of what I loved about those films that influenced me and I realize now that maybe I put more stake in the medium over the years than I should have.

 

[niki]

i' was born in "91 so I don't have any emotional attachment to film.. But from my experience working with colorists..Kodak film has the most professional and best image on the planet It gives the director and d.p. more control of their vision It's cheaper than working with digital which needs costly coloring and equipment rental. It gives the d.p. and or director a life instead of spending their time with the endless digital updates on cameras..and software..saving them from the digital black hole. On the set and in preparing your project there is more thought involved with using film. The world's best directors and d.p.s enthusiastically use film. Film sees things the way the human eye sees. When you buy a roll of film you are also buying the archival material for your film as well as having a perfect look right out of the can.. The best cameras in the world are film cameras. The best way to have a unique beautiful look if your starting out of is with film.


I think most of the directors you listed are doing movies with cgi..(that's maybe why red)

 

[roxics]

i' was born in "91 so I don't have any emotional attachment to film.. But from my experience working with colorists..Kodak film has the most professional and best image on the planet It gives the director and d.p. more control of their vision It's cheaper than working with digital which needs costly coloring and equipment rental. It gives the d.p. and or director a life instead of spending their time with the endless digital updates on cameras..and software..saving them from the digital black hole. On the set and in preparing your project there is more thought involved with using film. The world's best directors and d.p.s enthusiastically use film. Film sees things the way the human eye sees. When you buy a roll of film you are also buying the archival material for your film as well as having a perfect look right out of the can.. The best cameras in the world are film cameras. The best way to have a unique beautiful look if your starting out of is with film.


I think most of the directors you listed are doing movies with cgi..(that's maybe why red)

I wouldn't agree with most of that. Film is harder to use and you need to go through color timing with it. You also have to rent film cameras the same as digital cameras. It doesn't take forever to update the firmware on a digital camera. The worlds best directors don't all use film. The highest grossing movie out there is Avatar shot in HD basically.

 

[dmitrizigany]

I used to have a music studio. After many years recording digital, my studio partner bought a Studer A800 24-track 2" tape recorder. It was a beast, weights over 300kg, I think.
He had a lot of fiddling to do to get it going. I wasn't very interested. But then I recorded drums for my own band on it and damn, it sounded nice. I was convinced, from a pure audio point of view. I still thought he was a bit nuts for the amount of work and fiddling that it took to use it and keep it maintained.

Later we recorded a band with some veteran musicians that had been big in the 90s, recorded with produces like Bob Rock etc. They had done tons of recordings back when tape was the de facto standard. They weren't very impress, because how slow the process of recording to tape was compared to digital.

I guess it's the same shooting on film. All the stuff around it is such a hassle, waiting for dailies for a day or more instead of reviewing footage immediately etc... All things that digital make easier. Maybe also economics play an increasingly important part of the decisions?

 

[combatentropy]

roxics, what do you mean?

Film is a mixed bag. I'm sure those directors liked certain things about film: resolution, color, latitude, and S-curve. And I'm sure they disliked other things: scratches, jitter, gate weave, short record times, and waiting for dailies. They were probably ambivalent about grain.

They certainly weren't after the video look. They could have jumped ship earlier. For decades the industry had been trotting out videocameras to replace film. But most of Hollywood waited until a certain level of quality.

Video nowadays sometimes is indistiguishable from film, to my eye anyway. But other times it's surely video, even by Red or Alexa. It seems to be in the hands of the colorist. Film always looks like film though. Maybe that's why Spielberg sticks with it. Or maybe he can see a subtle superiority still.

Anyway, for most directors, sure, they like film. For many, maybe it's still a little better. But video has become good enough. To a director, it's especially appealing to easily do more takes or to keep the camera rolling between takes. So maybe the director doesn't suggest film, but when the producer presses for it, the director says, well okay.

By the way, have you watched Side by Side, Keanu Reeves's documentary about Hollywood's move from film to video? He interviews many directors, including some of the ones you mentioned. It's on Netflix.

 

[Batutta]

It was interesting to watch Steve Jobs, as you got to see 16mm, 35mm and Alexa footage back to back. While the Alexa was undoubtedly the cleanest and sharpest of the three, I could easily see that the color detail did not match 35mm film. There was less range, with colours looking more pastel-like than the subtle gradations film had. But its only a matter of time before digital matches and surpasses film in all respects. I think a lot of the old timers jump ship either because they want to stay current, or as with Lucas and Cameron, the extensive effects work in their films benefits from it.

 

[Liam Hall]

If you knew the lengths we used to go to, through a complex post chain, to control the look of a film you'd come to the conclusion the vision delivered is exactly what the director was striving for with the technology at the time. The biggest issue we always had was the loss of resolution as you step through intermediates from camera original through FX to release print.

Digital offers many benefits to today's directors. Instant feedback being one. Ease of use another.

 

[roxics]

roxics, what do you mean?


They certainly weren't after the video look. They could have jumped ship earlier. For decades the industry had been trotting out videocameras to replace film. But most of Hollywood waited until a certain level of quality.

Not after a video look per se, but an overall cleaner look. Sharper, more colorful, a more stable image, etc. Something that yes only the more recent digital cinema cameras have been able to achieve.

By the way, have you watched Side by Side, Keanu Reeves's documentary about Hollywood's move from film to video? He interviews many directors, including some of the ones you mentioned. It's on Netflix.

I have, but I should watch it again.

If you knew the lengths we used to go to, through a complex post chain, to control the look of a film you'd come to the conclusion the vision delivered is exactly what the director was striving for with the technology at the time. The biggest issue we always had was the loss of resolution as you step through intermediates from camera original through FX to release print.

Digital offers many benefits to today's directors. Instant feedback being one. Ease of use another.

Not sure if you're rebutting what I'm saying or agreeing with it. lol
My point is, that for the technology of the time they got the best they could, but even the best had certain defects that we today associate with the film look as a positive trait. But I question whether they considered them positive traits or simply had to live with them. Now that we have digital technology they are cleaning up even those old images (like Cameron removing the grain from Aliens) to get a look they would have preferred to get back then if technically possible.

So that leads me to believe that some of the things I romanticize about film, were simply thorns in their side on their quest to create the cleanest images possible.

 

[roxics]

It was interesting to watch Steve Jobs, as you got to see 16mm, 35mm and Alexa footage back to back. While the Alexa was undoubtedly the cleanest and sharpest of the three, I could easily see that the color detail did not match 35mm film. There was less range, with colours looking more pastel-like than the subtle gradations film had. But its only a matter of time before digital matches and surpasses film in all respects. I think a lot of the old timers jump ship either because they want to stay current, or as with Lucas and Cameron, the extensive effects work in their films benefits from it.

You'll get no debate from me there. Film has beautiful color and done right is stunning. Same with digital. But you're right that film comes with a certain baked in aesthetic that is nice to begin with, even if you do correction on it. But no matter how good, what we like about it is kind of what we like about vinyl, a certain warmth and character. Something digital can come close to in the right hands and will probably replicate entirely in a number of years but doesn't have to.

But where some filmmakers celebrate the medium, I think for others like these guys, the medium is simply the tool to tell the story and they want to get that out of the way as much as possible. A clearer window into the worlds they're creating rather than something filtered a certain way by the given medium. Even though you can never really escape that.

 

[roxics]

I used to have a music studio. After many years recording digital, my studio partner bought a Studer A800 24-track 2" tape recorder. It was a beast, weights over 300kg, I think.
He had a lot of fiddling to do to get it going. I wasn't very interested. But then I recorded drums for my own band on it and damn, it sounded nice. I was convinced, from a pure audio point of view. I still thought he was a bit nuts for the amount of work and fiddling that it took to use it and keep it maintained.

Later we recorded a band with some veteran musicians that had been big in the 90s, recorded with produces like Bob Rock etc. They had done tons of recordings back when tape was the de facto standard. They weren't very impress, because how slow the process of recording to tape was compared to digital.

I guess it's the same shooting on film. All the stuff around it is such a hassle, waiting for dailies for a day or more instead of reviewing footage immediately etc... All things that digital make easier. Maybe also economics play an increasingly important part of the decisions?

Interesting you brought up the audio analogy because I had this same conversation outside during a smoke break with a co-worker of mine. He's in a band outside of being my producer here on video projects. We came to the same conclusion. Had you given certain bands digital technology 40 years ago, they would have jumped on it. Witha desire to create the most life-like sound possible. The iconic sounds they ended up creating through certain tube amps and 2" tape was a byproduct, not intentional. A limitation. Whereas young musicians these days grew up with that sound and try to replicate it today, they would have avoided it if given the chance. I think the same is true with some of these filmmakers.

 

[combatentropy]

. . . even the best had certain defects that we today associate with the film look as a positive trait. . . . some of the things I romanticize about film, were simply thorns in their side

Exactly what defects do you like and thought they liked? Can you list them?

The only one I can think of that anyone liked is grain, and only in moderation, and that they only realized they liked a little of it after it was completely erased.

 

[roxics]

I like the motion of film. A certain amount of gateweave and what I can only assume is a very minor shifting in the image due to the film not being always completely flat in the gate. By that I mean very minor. But still not like digital that has an always flat fixed sensor. As well as grain. I think all of this added to a certain textural quality and character that film has (or had) and also in some ways helped the suspension of disbelief because it added to the unrealism of the image.

But I don't think those were characteristics that some other filmmakers celebrated. I think for a lot of them they were always after something that was more perfect. Clearer, sharper, more stable, etc. They wanted the medium to get out of the way as much as possible to tell the story with what was in front of the camera and not so much with how the camera itself interpreted the scene in its interesting filmic ways.

But again, the way I saw their movies was imperfect. So to me at a young age that was what I took to be an intentional look and one I strived for myself with all its imperfections. Not knowing those may not have been intentional but simply limitations of the medium at the time.

 

[Liam Hall]

Not sure if you're rebutting what I'm saying or agreeing with it. lol
My point is, that for the technology of the time they got the best they could, but even the best had certain defects that we today associate with the film look as a positive trait. But I question whether they considered them positive traits or simply had to live with them. Now that we have digital technology they are cleaning up even those old images (like Cameron removing the grain from Aliens) to get a look they would have preferred to get back then if technically possible.

So that leads me to believe that some of the things I romanticize about film, were simply thorns in their side on their quest to create the cleanest images possible.

It's true to say that back in the day the image you saw projected in the cinema was nowhere close to the quality of a print from the camera original neg, but that's not the same as saying it wasn't representative of the director's vision or that directors wanted a 'clean' image. Most DoPs shot with promists and other diffusions in an attempt to get away from 'clean' imagery as 'clean' was associated with video.

 

[OldCorpse]

A lot of the nostalgia for film stock comes from being encultured to associate the magic of cinema with film. The "video" alternative at the time (70's onward) was in contrast objectively inferior from a technical point of view. As a result, "real movie" look was further bound to film - you knew that was what was preferred. But two things happened - video started catching up with film technically (it's almost completely there in some respects, and outpaces film in other respects), and as digital improved it got disconnected from the "video look" associated with an inferior medium; so now you're having a generation grow up on digital without the same enculturation to automatically associate film = movies. That means everything will come down to what it should have always been (and in some ways always was) - which medium best translates the artistic vision of the filmmakers.

Effect comes first. How you get there is not important. If you can have a beautiful image that strongly impacts the viewers, it doesn't matter whether you accomplish it with film, digital or finger painting. It's the final effect that matters. And therefore I am very grateful for digital and super optimistic about its potential. Yes, 70mm still has an edge in some ways over digital, but not for long, I reckon. We will get digital capabilities that will outstrip anything ever dreamt up on film, I'm quite certain. That in turn will change the aesthetic of what movies are. They'll create a new magic, even more acute in its effects on us humans. And the advantages of the digital workflow are incomparable, so all hail Digital.

It is tempting to look to the past for guidance to the future - film stock also kept improving, and people were more than OK with it. When we moved from B&W to color, the color was pretty dodgy while B&W had reached incredible artistic heights. Then color caught up - after going through some pretty funky phases (San Francisco still has never looked as beautiful as in Vertigo through the magic of Technicolor, unrealistic as it was). The demand for B&W fell off pretty much completely (at least for commercial cinema) - a pity in some ways as I love me some B&W noir cinematography. So I think that digital can be thought of as just another evolution of the stock/medium, clumsy and inferior in the beginning, but then it catches up and surpases.

A more interesting (to me) discussion would be the issue of 3D. I cannot make up my mind. On the one hand, people say it's an inevitable evolution of movies, just as it was when sound was added to film - sound was also opposed by purists (at least in the beginning - see Chaplin) who claimed that the purest expression of film is through visuals, and it takes great artistry to do that (and Chaplin certainly proved it through his mastery of the silent pictures). But sound took over and like with B&W you pretty much have no silents made anymore (for commercial cinema). On the other hand, you have people arguing that 3D is inherently a different art form - sort of like sculpture is 3D and painting is 2D, and both will coexist. Sculpture didn't take over painting - both exist simultaneously. Color and sound took over from B&W and silent. So too with film and 3D film. I kinda lean toward this point of view - I think film will always exist alongside 3D and 3D is just another art form. I don't know whether I'll go so far as to call 3D a fad like those super wide screens or certainly not stunts like smell-o-rama and shaking seats. I think 3D is legit, but how big it will be, I can't say. Maybe it will always be niche. Maybe it is still in its infancy - after all, it took awhile before color got good too - and we do know that 3D has been tried in the past and faded, but those were early crawling attempts. Maybe one day there will develop a huge artform and all the cool kids will flock to 3D for amazing experiences. It's slow going. I saw Gravity in 3D and I guess it was fine, but nothing earth-shattering to me. Maybe it's early days yet with 3D. But for me, good old 2D film - digital - is where its at. So I welcome the digital transition - in 2D

 

[ugafan]

if my favoite filmmakers who influenced me to become a filmmaker have moved on to digital because that's what they were always after, then does it make sense for me to desire a film look based off a misrepresentation of their work? Is it wiser for me to embrace what I witnessed in my youth or instead aim for what they always intended?

embrace what YOU like. you are the filmmaker.

 

[Patryk_Rebisz]

My favorite filmmakers growing up were George Lucas, James Cameron, Sam Raimi, Ridley Scott and later on by the 90s others such as Peter Jackson (Meet the Feebles/The Frighteners and later LOTR) and David Fincher (because I'm one of the few that actually liked Alien 3 among his other movies).

What I find interesting is that the vast majority of these guys have moved on to digital. Interestingly enough, mostly RED cameras as well.

I have to ask myself, why is it that these guys, mostly old timers in the industry now, have moved on to digital? You'd think that if anyone was still demanding to shoot film it would be these older guys who made some of their best work with that medium. Spielberg has stuck with film but even Scorsese has become format agnostic.

The only thing I can think of is that most of these guys never really liked film. I think that's apparent with Lucas jumping to digital as quickly as he could and Cameron remastering Aliens by taking out all the grain. They like telling stories with moving images but never cared for the medium of celluloid itself.
Which means that these guys are story tellers first and foremost. That's my guess anyway.

As I watch newer scans of their older films I see the resolution, color and even a more stabilized image. The look remains familiar but the image is definitely more digital-like as a result of the higher quality digital scans. I can only imagine this is what they were all after to begin with. That while many of us cherish some of the defects of celluloid and celebrate it for its ability to suspend our disbelief, these guys must have always been after an image that was more digital looking, but weren't able to fully achieve it until now.

I grew up mostly watching their films on VHS or in the theater off a print, so my impresson was that's what they were always after. It isn't until now I realize that's probably wrong. Which leaves me in a strange position. These guys influenced me early in my life. They influenced me to want to get into filmmaking myself, yet that film-like image they produced which caused me to want to imitate it, is not what they seemed to be after themselves.

So it leaves me in a position where I have to ask myself a couple questions; if my favoite filmmakers who influenced me to become a filmmaker have moved on to digital because that's what they were always after, then does it make sense for me to desire a film look based off a misrepresentation of their work? Is it wiser for me to embrace what I witnessed in my youth or instead aim for what they always intended?

It's not that my intension is to be a copycat. It's to get at the heart of what I loved about those films that influenced me and I realize now that maybe I put more stake in the medium over the years than I should have.

The major issue you overlook is that we are a product of our times and no one is immune form thinking, acting, dressing, desiring the way the times force us to. And so when the 80s/90s directors were shooting film, the technology allowed the image to be only that clean. And because that image was the de facro standard, they strove for their films to look that way. As the film technology keep on improving, their perception has changed too - all the sudden the film scan became so perfect (perfect registration, grain and scratch removal) that it really doesn't look much different then digital. So the film gained "digital look" and that new look became the new standard everyone strove for.

 

[David W. Jones]

I worked with film for over 30 years, and am pretty much all digital now. My thoughts.... Whether or not I enjoy a movie has nothing to do with the acquisition format used to capture the footage.

 

[Grug]

I just saw The Hateful Eight in Glorious Ultra Panavision 70 last night. And even though it was, without doubt, one of the best film projections I've ever seen - a squeaky clean print, and very stable image with absolutely minimal gate weave. I was struck by just how little impact the recording format had on the film - the compositions, the lighting, the camera movement, all of these things would have looked perfectly lovely on S35mm film, or S35mm digital, with anamorphic or spherical lenses.

Quite simply, the capture medium was the least significant aspect of the images.

It comes as something of a relief to me to be honest, I've been telling myself this logical fact for some time now, but haven't quite completely believed it - but now I'm certain beyond a doubt. We had near perfect conditions for the screening, and if perfectly projected 65mm film offers no appreciable improvement to modern s35mm digital, then there's simply no reason to fuss too much about these things anymore. I'll make a point to worry more about what's in front of the camera from now on.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Exactly what defects do you like and thought they liked? Can you list them?

The only one I can think of that anyone liked is grain, and only in moderation, and that they only realized they liked a little of it after it was completely erased.

Actually for quite a while the Holy Grail of Film was 'no grain'... either through manufacturing research and development or processing, as in using developers which minimized grain... some developers even 'eroded' the grain to try to achieve a less obvious grain structure...

But for some the 'grain', if it was seen at all, should have been 'crisp'... rather than 'eroded mush'...

There were of course artistic styles that used 'grain', but for most major studio films, grain was seen as 'noise', and in fact that some of the late 60's/70's films now 'classic', were in fact criticized because of their 'poor' film quality, since the filmmakers were shooting 2 stops under and pushing, resulting in more grain, to able to shoot on location rather than in studios, and in any case use less lights and less cost...

 

[niki]

I wouldn't agree with most of that. Film is harder to use and you need to go through color timing with it. You also have to rent film cameras the same as digital cameras. It doesn't take forever to update the firmware on a digital camera. The worlds best directors don't all use film. The highest grossing movie out there is Avatar shot in HD basically.

this is the perspective in L.A. from D.P.S to a Producer...and from Colorists..

from Colorists"you save a lot of money with film because it's good right out of the can while a digital job can take months to correct.."

from D.P.S in general what they spoke about...THEY ALL WANT TO WORK WITH FILM (EVEN SUPER 16MM)
For artistic reasons and the beauty of the image...
they also like their vision protected ..and film does that for them..(not so many people looking at monitors..post etc..)

from the Producers...(again in general what they said) Film is cheaper for them then renting a high end digital camera (most film cameras are super cheap)...and not having to spend time with colorists...(which I know because that's where I was working)
when you look at a can of film you are also looking at your archival material and coloring...that saves a lot $$$

whatever you do in your production test first and weigh the costs and the art..and then choose..