Film vs. Digital Documentary: SIDE BY SIDE

[matrix_ghost]

C'mon guys. You can't criticise people like Wally with only a trailer.
Although Wally prefers to shoot his movies on film , maybe that part of the documentary was more about making 3-d movies.
RIght now there seems to be group who wants to promote shooting in IMAX and/or larger formats such a 65 or 70 mm as opposed to people who want to shoot digitally ( in order to make 3-d movies).
Even with digital cameras getting better and better , they still can't match the IMAX format ( ...for now...)
Though it would be interesting to see what Peter Jackson and James Cameron are going next. Peter Jackson is shooting Hobbit in 48 fps and Cameron wants to go 60 fps with AVatar 2 and 3
THose who have seen the camera tests have seriously been impressed with the realism.

 

[dark_b]

my opinion on Pfyster and his comments is based on 4 years watching his interviews.

about Imax . its a camera that is not practical for a full length movie. a camera that loud that is distracting actors.....ACTING is not practical. a camera that big is not practical. its a camera that almost can not be used for stedicam.its of course fantastic for image quality. i bow down.

so i ask. who is a more responsible director. the one who is distracting them with loud noises or the one who leaves them acting with a quiet camera?

 

[matrix_ghost]

my opinion on Pfyster and his comments is based on 4 years watching his interviews.

about Imax . its a camera that is not practical for a full length movie. a camera that loud that is distracting actors.....ACTING is not practical. a camera that big is not practical. its a camera that almost can not be used for stedicam.its of course fantastic for image quality. i bow down.

so i ask. who is a more responsible director. the one who is distracting them with loud noises or the one who leaves them acting with a quiet camera?

IMAX never really for shooting dialogue scenes. It was more about shooting all these amazing landscapes .
If filmmakers want to promote more movies that have been shot ( partially) with IMAX cameras , i don't see why the IMAX corproration can't work to create a more user friendly camera.
It worked with digital cameras.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Can digital be used for IMAX at all? If not now, someday?

 

[Doctor Jones]

Well, Scorsese was intent on making it in 3D, so he had to go digital for that. It also helped that he and Robert Richardson went and "schooled" themselves on how to use and shoot it. It looks stunning in digital 3D.

And I wish Tarantino would "look" forward instead of intending to go old-school every time he shoots a damn movie.

I see. I'm glad an old school and great filmmaker like Scorsese is willing to change.

"If you Don't Adapt.....You'll Be Left Behind"

Exactly. In 20 years does Nolan and Pfister expect to still be shooting on film? They'll be the only kids on the playground but all by themselves going, "Hey look! We're still shooting on film!"

When in 20 years I'm sure, digital will be much better and better than film. They have a stubborn attitude that's not exactly fair.

It's more nostalgia than anything.

you thought Hugo was post converted 3D?

No I meant that I didn't know it was shot digitally. Hell, I didn't even know you have to shoot digital when going for 3D.

 

[Call Me Darkman]

I didn't even know you have to shoot digital when going for 3D.

Hollywood has been making 3D movies since the `50s, so technically you don't. But with film you have to use those red/blue glasses. Remember those?

 

[dark_b]

Can digital be used for IMAX at all? If not now, someday?

in the future a digital camera will be able to come close to the size of Imax. but it will not be film. a lot of imax fans are using it because it is film.

 

[dark_b]

No I meant that I didn't know it was shot digitally. Hell, I didn't even know you have to shoot digital when going for 3D.

yes the new 3d rig can only work with digital cameras.

 

[humbdrumb]

The thing with digital is that it looks far too clean and sterile most of the time. An example of this would be Winter's Bone. It should have been shot on grainy film stock, not a RED with an uber clear image. It was just bizarre seeing such a depressing film with depressing landscapes look so clean and clear. Digital only looks as good as film when you have real auteurs like Fincher, Scorsese, and more recently Refn with Drive, using it. Otherwise film looks vastly superior to digital. When you have directors like Spielberg, Nolan, PTA, and Tarantino still using film, I don't think the medium is going to disappear anytime soon.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Wait, Drive was digital? ****, I'm just finding this out. Just goes to show it doesn't make a difference if it's handled well.

 

[mclay18]

Hollywood has been making 3D movies since the `50s, so technically you don't. But with film you have to use those red/blue glasses. Remember those?

I think when Man of Steel comes out, it will be the first non-analgyptic 3D film shot on film (there's a link in the MOS thread where a dual-camera system was photographed on set). But that's all depending on whether WB is still high on "make every big-budget film in 3D!" either later this year or next.

That will be interesting to see.

 

[Call Me Darkman]

The thing with digital is that it looks far too clean and sterile most of the time. An example of this would be Winter's Bone. It should have been shot on grainy film stock, not a RED with an uber clear image. It was just bizarre seeing such a depressing film with depressing landscapes look so clean and clear.

I never understood this fascination with grain. It's probably just nostalgia. Truth is that the ultimate goal has always been for clear image. With each new camera, the footage has always been clearer and more detailed. That's what separates a 1950s black & white film from one made in the 1930s. And it's what separates a 1990s colored film from one made in the 1960s.

And now that we've achieved that, the next step is depth of field, which is why filmmakers like James Cameron are obsessed with 3D. The 3D trend won't last because Hollywood is killing it, but directors will use the technology developed to improve on the 2D image.

 

[Marvolo]

I never understood this fascination with grain. It's probably just nostalgia. Truth is that the ultimate goal has always been for clear image. With each new camera, the footage has always been clearer and more detailed. That's what separates a 1950s black & white film from one made in the 1930s. And it's what separates a 1990s colored film from one made in the 1960s.

And now that we've achieved that, the next step is depth of field, which is why filmmakers like James Cameron are obsessed with 3D. The 3D trend won't last because Hollywood is killing it, but directors will use the technology developed to improve on the 2D image.

Natural grain that is inherent in the film stock is like the brush strokes on a beautiful piece of art. It adds personality to the canvas and art. But just like with paintings you can ruin art with crappy brushstrokes. Grain used the wrong way or artificial grain (except in some cases) can ugly up a movie. Film is an artform. Cinematography, grain, sound, the canvas they shoot on etc. these are all things that give texture to a movie.

This is just my opinion tho.

 

[hammerhedd11]

I see advantages to both systems. The question is, since people like Nolan can afford it, why can't both be used according to what works for each director? I don't see how/why film will ever be obsolete. Can't we all just get along?

 

[dark_b]

Natural grain that is inherent in the film stock is like the brush strokes on a beautiful piece of art. It adds personality to the canvas and art. But just like with paintings you can ruin art with crappy brushstrokes. Grain used the wrong way or artificial grain (except in some cases) can ugly up a movie. Film is an artform. Cinematography, grain, sound, the canvas they shoot on etc. these are all things that give texture to a movie.

This is just my opinion tho.

i disagree with the brush comparison. you make a choice to use a brush for painting. with grain you never made a choice before digital. you used a film camera and grain was something that you got because thats how the technology worked.

 

[dark_b]

I see advantages to both systems. The question is, since people like Nolan can afford it, why can't both be used according to what works for each director? I don't see how/why film will ever be obsolete. Can't we all just get along?

i agree. every director should use what he wants to use. i dont want Nolan to be forced to direct 3D movies in 10 years.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Nolan will never be forced to do anything now.

 

[Call Me Darkman]

i disagree with the brush comparison. you make a choice to use a brush for painting. with grain you never made a choice before digital. you used a film camera and grain was something that you got because thats how the technology worked.

Exactly. As I said, I think that after a 100 year, people have just gotten used to the grain. So, it's weird NOT to see it. But in time, they'll get used to it. It's like when color film first showed up. It looked weird and some people resisted the new technology and sticked to black and white. But eventually, they got used to color and the technology improved.

 

[dark_b]

Nolan will never be forced to do anything now.

even if the makes 2 or 3 bombs?

 

[Marvolo]

i disagree with the brush comparison. you make a choice to use a brush for painting. with grain you never made a choice before digital. you used a film camera and grain was something that you got because thats how the technology worked.

Some directors choose a film based on its grain structure. Cameron used to be one of them. He talks about it in the commentary for Aliens, and says its one reason he loves the film stock he chose for Aliens, bacause the film stock has such a beautiful natural grain structure compared to the 2:35.1 film stock he considered going with. Now he doesn't think about it because he went digital, but at a time he did. Before digital, some directors and DPs did choose film stocks because of grain structure. In that regard it is the equivelant of brush strokes. Grain changes the look of a film, and a brush changes the look of a painting.

 

[Doctor Jones]

even if the makes 2 or 3 bombs?

Yup. He's in the realm of Fincher, Jackson, Cameron and Spielberg now where he can do anything he wants. Fincher, Jackson and Spielberg have had bombs yet they still get to do what they want. Nolan has Inception and Batman. That's all he needs. Jackson has LOTR, and Cameron has Titanic and now Avatar.

 

[matrix_ghost]

Yup. He's in the realm of Fincher, Jackson, Cameron and Spielberg now where he can do anything he wants. Fincher, Jackson and Spielberg have had bombs yet they still get to do what they want. Nolan has Inception and Batman. That's all he needs. Jackson has LOTR, and Cameron has Titanic and now Avatar.

Disagree . Thoroughly.
If Nolan has 2-3 bombs back to back , he'll have definately lose the freedom he currently has.
Although the directors you listed have made movies that bombed/underpeformed at the BO , their next movies were a success.

 

[dark_b]

Fincher and Jackson are not IMO in a postion where they can make every movie.

 

[roach]

I've shot on both film and digital and I like both.
On film because you have a certain amount of film you spend a little more time rehearsing scenes. I found myself being very careful 'going for picture' on a film shoot.

On the other hand on a digital shoot its one less thing you have to worry about. No roll counts, no cans loaded wrong, nothing stuck in the gate.

That being said I shake my head when I hear a filmmaker say they will only shoot film or only shoot digital. Film/digital are tools. A filmmaker must use the best format to help tell the story or invoke the feeling they are trying to achieve.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Disagree . Thoroughly.
If Nolan has 2-3 bombs back to back , he'll have definately lose the freedom he currently has.
Although the directors you listed have made movies that bombed/underpeformed at the BO , their next movies were a success.

He didn't say 2 to 3 films back to back. If that were the case, I could see that. But if they were spaced out, which I was going for, then he still would.