Film vs. Digital Documentary: SIDE BY SIDE

[Figs]

Cameron a *****e? Because the guy knows what he's talking about, and it annoys you or other people that he is incredibly knowledgeable on this topic and just a genius overall?

Laughable Internet trolls.

I think it's butt hurt fanboys still crying that they spent money on Avatar...even though you could already tell what kind of movie you were getting before you watched it.

 

[Carnotaur3]

They already have 35 mm film cameras that also shoot a digital copy so that you won't wait for post process. Also, they hook up to monitors. So that's a null argument when it comes to film which - keep in mind - no filmmaker balked at back in the day. Of course they all had this **** down to a science and didn't need to see it on the set.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

I can't wait to watch this film it's crazy I didn't know about it till now.

 

[mclay18]

I'm no cinematographer, so I'm just going by what I shoot with my still cameras.

I prefer the look of 35mm, and when I'm shooting with it, I don't worry about how it's going to turn out. Most of the film and prints I get processed turns out as I saw it or sometimes even better than that. And on the occasion it doesn't, it's mostly due to the quality of the film itself, not the development process or exposure.

With digital, it's a bit trickier. Sometimes it doesn't look quite right and at other times, it looks good but I need to do more digital adjustments to make it look the way I want.

 

[Tequilla]

I've seen the doc. Meh. It should be very accessible to people who dont know a thing about it. It shows some (very) basic concepts. Its more about the development of digital , then a comparison between formats. In that aspect , its very lackluster.

I dont remember who said it , but some guy said something i completely agree. Some filmmakers today have no idea what they want on the set. So they simply go there and film from every single possible way (its just more data...) , expecting to create the movie on post. They lack focus. That is something that is easily seen in some contemporary cinema.

Cameron a *****e? Because the guy knows what he's talking about, and it annoys you or other people that he is incredibly knowledgeable on this topic and just a genius overall?

Laughable Internet trolls.

Being a *****e has nothing to do with is talent.

He always sounds kinda like a prick when he talks.

And there's a lot of reports of his clashes with many film crews.

That doesn't diminish or enhances his qualities.

 

[Carnotaur3]

Agreed with Tequila. It seems most filmmakers today don't execute a specific vision until post-prod. And I absolutely detest films that push their color timing to its absolute limit.

 

[vanson]

i prefer film over digital... but sometimes, i have to admit, i'm pretty surprised whats shot digital.. f.ex. recently zero dark thirty.... skyfall was also pretty close to a "film look"

 

[Tacit Ronin]

To be fair, Malick's collaborators say he has no idea how his film will turn out until he is in the editing room literally creating the film. He is then inclined to excise massive portions of the script, including entire plot points and characters depending on what emotional line he thinks the film should move on. I guess the difference is that Malick knows what he wants to capture on the frame, even if he doesn't know how the images will fit together, whereas today's filmmakers don't know what they want visually, so they will shoot a LOT of coverage.

 

[Tequilla]

To be fair, Malick's collaborators say he has no idea how his film will turn out until he is in the editing room literally creating the film. He is then inclined to excise massive portions of the script, including entire plot points and characters depending on what emotional line he thinks the film should move on. I guess the difference is that Malick knows what he wants to capture on the frame, even if he doesn't know how the images will fit together, whereas today's filmmakers don't know what they want visually, so they will shoot a LOT of coverage.

Yeah...but you're talking about an extremely talented filmmaker. That's never fair t: But yes he has a very loose style with the camera (not always , some of those framings obviously are well prepared , but a lot of it is also very naturalistic , just the camera capturing every moment).

I'm talking about more of a clear pattern of director's just filming everything in every possible way. Digital kinda aggravated that. Not so much letting the camera kinda flow.

And this as nothing to do with filming a lot. Again using a very known filmmaker , kubrick filmed a lot , but he always knew what he wanted. Some of the scenes that's well known he just did one over another over another , it was to capture what he wanted. Not to have footage to inter-cut. For instance if we look back at the scene of The Shining with Halloran speaking with the kid (which is said to have taken a lot of takes) , its basically 3 different setups and a forth one utilized in just a bunch of seconds. A 5 min scene. Today a simple scene like that would probably be cut thorough every possible shoulder , a lot wide shots from in every corner of the room , closeups ,medium closeups , they would probably get up , etc , etc.

 

[Tim_Riggins]

I've seen the doc. Meh. It should be very accessible to people who dont know a thing about it. It shows some (very) basic concepts. Its more about the development of digital , then a comparison between formats. In that aspect , its very lackluster.

I dont remember who said it , but some guy said something i completely agree. Some filmmakers today have no idea what they want on the set. So they simply go there and film from every single possible way (its just more data...) , expecting to create the movie on post. They lack focus. That is something that is easily seen in some contemporary cinema.



Being a *****e has nothing to do with is talent.

He always sounds kinda like a prick when he talks.

And there's a lot of reports of his clashes with many film crews.

That doesn't diminish or enhances his qualities.

Making movies as he makes them means he's under a lot of pressure, clashes with film crews happen with a lot of directors, you really think this all goes smoothly?

 

[Tim_Riggins]

Digital will become superior soon enough, Red are pushing the boundaries with the Dragon sensor in the Epic, coming up soon: 6K, wont be long till we reach IMAX resolution.

My favorite movies cinematography wise are practically all digital: Avatar, Prometheus, The Social Network, Drive, Life Of Pi, The Hobbit: AUJ, Hugo, Tron Legacy. But I do love film as well: The Assassination Of Jesse James, The Grey, Warrior, Moneyball, TDK, TDKR, On The Road, Into The Wild, The Master, Anna Karenina, etc

I also shoot on digital (out of constraints) and it's just fantastic to be able to see right away how your shot looks, and being able to just transfer the rushes directly from the card to the computer and start editing right away.

Plus, digital is looking a lot more filmic now, the Red Epic and the Alexa have actually a very fine grain, that looks quite filmic (The Hobbit, Skyfall, After Earth trailer in HD shows this too, so does Iron Man 3), it's not at all an all smooth image, and it pleases me.


I've always been a huge supporter of digital but let's hope film goes on, even if only for a few movies, look at Man Of Steel, looks gorgeous.

Movies like The Grey, Warrior or Savages just delight me, I love this texture, the grain, but I also love it when it's smooth.

 

[dark_b]

yes Drive was digital. there is a god

 

[747]

Just saw it. Great watch.

I don't prefer either of the formats per se. It all depends on how and where it's used. Like I've said, there is both fantastic and weaker cinematography on both sides. Loving one side shouldn't exclude loving the other too.

I do really appreciate the ones pushing the digital format forward in both technology and in ways of using it. I just don't want the film option to all but die out too soon. To the point where if you're not already a huge director, you will be forced to use digital. As always with most things, there gotta be a balance.

 

[RetrogradeOrbit]

I think long term storage has to be considered too.

 

[redhawk23]

I think long term storage has to be considered too.

This. One of the various film companies recently came out with a new kind of long storage film for digitally shot films to be printed to but I don't know if it is being adapted.

From what I've heard there are no longer cinema quality copies of Never Let Me Go, a digitally shot film from 2010.

 

[dark_b]

http://www.slashfilm.com/the-coen-brothers-are-going-digital/

 

[Project862006]

so who still uses film?

i know nolan ,tarantino,snyder use it who else?

 

[dark_b]

JJ for SW

 

[vinsanity]

Spielberg, David O'Russel, Wally Pfister, Edgar Wright, Mathew Vaughn, Terence Mallick, Paul Thomas Anderson and i think Darren Aronofsky (not sure, he shot Black Swan in Super 16mm, not sure about Noah)

 

[Tequilla]

Lots of people still use.

And with Kodak coming back , maybe a lot more

http://geeknation.com/kodak-is-back-in-business-after-bankruptcy/

 

[RetrogradeOrbit]

^^^
That is good news.

 

[Octoberist]

so who still uses film?

i know nolan ,tarantino,snyder use it who else?

JJ Abrams, Rian Johnson, Speilberg.

 

[Octoberist]

I think digital like film has their advantages and disadvantages. I do think however, the majority of the advantages of digital mostly affects the filmmaker (or if you're into filmmaking in general).

When film is being misused with bad cinematography, it looks awful obviously. When digital is being misused, for one reason or another, it annoys me more so. I think it's because I'm rooting for this very young format and i really want each film that uses that sort of tech to take advantage of it.

But when you have movies like 'Pirates 4' or 'Iron Man 3' where the cinematography is dreary and flat, it just gives more ammo to the digital haters, you know?

 

[Octoberist]

That being said, my heart still belongs to film.

 

[mclay18]

I still wish Fujifilm was still making motion picture stock. I thought their colors looked more refined and natural in some movies than those shot on Kodak stock.

But having Kodak still producing film is a big win. Filmmakers should have the option between the formats, instead of being forced to shoot digitally.