What YOU can do with a camera should be the most important factor

[DavidBeier]

Thought this might be an interesting story given the whole film vs. digital debate.

Last night I was cleaning out my room and I came accross one of my old 16mm films from college. We'd shot it regular Black and White 16mm (not super), and then transfered it to Beta SP for editing and then compression onto a DVD. I realize this is hardly the best method of testing 16mm but it's how my school and a lot of ones handled the process three or four years ago.

I remember that our footage was some of the best in the class. We managed to control our exposures (save for one shot), keep down grain, and produce a generally sharp and pretty image.

I watched the film last night and was surprised. Not just at what a lousy movie it was (I mean really bad) but also how the image didn't really impress me as much as it should have.

I then pulled out a DVD of the last film I made, shot on a DVX100A last year and winner of my colleges film festival. The film has several sections in black and white so I decided to compare these to the 16mm stuff. What suprised me was how much better the DVX stuff looked. It was far cleaner with richer blacks, more detail, and a much more pleasing image. Really the diference was night and day.

Now, I'm well aware that even regualr 16mm film these days is far superior to DVX footage technically. That's not the poin though. I started using the DVX100 and digital not just because of the cheaper cost (which yes was a factor) but largely because of the flexibility. I loved this little camera that I didn't have to worry about a light meter with and I could see what I was going to get immediatly on the LCD screen. I was happy with my 16mm results (in fact they turned out way better than I thought) but I ultimatly still didn't like the fact that I wouldn't know EXACTLY how it would look untill I got it back from the lab. Digital just let me be more flexible and creative and was more fun.

Having to get to really become comfortible digital, I've found that I've been able to produce results better than I once got on film. I think this is the part of the film vs. digital debate that is always lacking. Yes film is technically superior and the lattitude blows away digital (a issue for me). But ultimatly it's more important what you are able to do with the camera then the tech specs. The fact is that I find digital much more pleasant to work with and this not only affects the my workflow but the quality of my movies both visually and otherwise. Why do you think people like Francis Ford Coppola, James Camera, Steve Soddenberg, and Peter Jackson are picking up HVXs? These can afford to work with film and know the benafits but they still want to have these small digital options availible. It's not the cost, it's the flexibility.

 

[500lb Productions]

Having to get to really become comfortible digital, I've found that I've been able to produce results better than I once got on film. I think this is the part of the film vs. digital debate that is always lacking.

This has been discussed occasionally in the world of still photography. Many photographers will tell you that the biggest advantage of digital was the compression of the feedback loop between the time of a production and the time when realistic feedback could be obtained.

While that time lag may be harmful everywhere, it's especially brutal in photography and even more so in film. So much of the "creative" process is trial and error, and having immediate feedback can reduce a series of 52 trials from a year (one trial a week) to a very long day (one trial every 15 minutes).

As digital becomes more accepted into filmmaking, and as new generation of filmmakers grow up on digital, you'll find new talent being able to learn faster and do more on thier SMALL productions. BIG productions won't change much. The Hollywood system is complex because a big production is complex, and the system works very well for those big productions.

But it's the SMALL productions where you'll see the most dramatic impact.

Consider the world of fashion photography. 20 years ago, you had a handful of gods, a small second string, and a mass of crappy amateurs who simply couldn't accomplish but so much. TODAY, you still have the handful of gods, but the second string has swelled as good digital has allowed many of those crappy amateurs to learn and develop.