Film vs. Digital Documentary: SIDE BY SIDE

[Blue Sugar]

I love both film and digital. It all depends on how and where it's used. I hope and believe both ways of filming can co-exist. Without having to choose side so blatantly.

 

[LuvSupes]

26 min talk about the film in Berlin, looking forward to this doc.
haha Keanu calling Lucas Zeus, and Cameron been there done everything, know everything

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV22i3J_05c

 

[dark_b]

its over

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJ4dAY3DW4c

 

[The Morningstar]

haha yea, if Roger Deakins says digital is a-ok, you listen.

 

[mclay18]

haha yea, if Roger Deakins says digital is a-ok, you listen.

Bet he doesn't realize the hidden cost of maintaining a digitally-shot 4K movie... about four times more than preserving regular film.

 

[The Morningstar]

Isn't one of the benefits of using digital that it's cheaper and more efficient?

 

[Fenrir]

Nolan's position seems to be quite reasonable. In the DGA interview from a couple of weeks ago he elaborates on that a little more. It's true that he despises 3D and digital as inferior formats, but what he is against is the "forced transition" that studios are imposing upon directors. He simply wants the "film" option to be there for anyone who is willing to use it instead of being left no choice but to go digital.

 

[dark_b]

he despises 3d and digital?

 

[dark_b]

Nolan's position seems to be quite reasonable. In the DGA interview from a couple of weeks ago he elaborates on that a little more. It's true that he despises 3D and digital as inferior formats, but what he is against is the "forced transition" that studios are imposing upon directors. He simply wants the "film" option to be there for anyone who is willing to use it instead of being left no choice but to go digital.

who is going to pay for this?

 

[vanson]

i'm really looking forward to this one!

i think no one is really pushed to do something digital.. its not cheaper so you go with personal taste..

 

[DoomsdayApex]

Why does it have to be a debate? If Nolan, Wally and Tarantino prefer film then let them be. Digital caters to a more broad audience and might be the future but I enjoy both formats. Call it nostilgia or conviction but it's no different than us fans arguing our favorite classic films over the new reboots.

 

[jonnywhc]

I have no idea where i'll be able to see this but I cant wait!

Ps. IMAX > all.

t:

If I where making a film I know which one would be easier, but I need more side by side comparisons to really make a decision on what looks better.

Edit - can anyone find some good comparisons? I looked but all I got was actually photography!

 

[jnmx2000]

who is going to pay for this?

Pay for what? Shooting on film? That comes out of the studios pockets. If you mean the transition to digital, it's already done, the last two companies that made film cameras made their last ones last year and every camera produced from this year on will be digital cameras. The only way to continue to use film is to use old set ups as no company is making them anymore.

 

[mclay18]

Isn't one of the benefits of using digital that it's cheaper and more efficient?

It is. But sometimes there's technical snafus with digital cameras, and a day's worth of shooting can be erased or lost in an instant (which leads to reshooting that day's work again). I remember Gary Ross saying in a NYT interview that because of the tight production schedule on The Hunger Games, they opted to use film cameras. He not only favored the look of film, but because they couldn't afford any delays if they used digital cameras and the cameras malfunctioned or acted up during shooting.

What I'm pointing out is that it may be cheaper in the short run, it's costly to maintain high-quality digitally-shot films in the long run. I read that film reels stored in a cold vault can be kept for decades without any image degradation, while it's 4x more expensive to maintain a digital copy. Like I said earlier, I think studios should try and mitigate costs by printing digitally-shot movies on a good quality film negative and storing the negatives in their vaults. Because if something happens to the digital archives in Hollywood, those digital 'prints' are lost for good.

On the other hand, I think hardcore film-only directors, like Nolan, Tarantino, Spielberg and PT Anderson, are limiting themselves in the long run. There are some incredible digital cameras out there... and I think none of these directors have really studied or thoroughly tested the cameras there. They should try it... and if they don't like it, they can always go back to film.

 

[craigdbfan]

Is Spielberg really hardcore film only? I thought he was pretty open about the idea of using digital.

 

[mclay18]

Is Spielberg really hardcore film only? I thought he was pretty open about the idea of using digital.

He shot digital for Adventures of Tintin because he saw it as an animated film, and not technically a live-action film. He still shoots live-action movies on film. Now Spielberg used to be hardcore old-school, as in he and Michael Kahn used to edit film on an Moviola and flatbed editor. (I think Nolan and Tarantino still edit that way.)

 

[Wolfwood]

I just find it hilarious that Keanu Reeves of all people spear headed this thing. Nothing against, just not something I pictured him doing.

 

[Octoberist]

I think digital has a lot going for it, when you got Skyfall and any of David Ficher's latest films in tow.

But digital has room for improvement: For example, depending on the director or cinematographer, night/dark scenes in digital can look video-ish, grainy, or overly dark. When I saw The Great Gatsby trailer, it looked beautiful, but there are shots (mostly at night) when the frames-of-rate looks off and video-ish.

Samething with Gangster Squad.

 

[mclay18]

I think digital has a lot going for it, when you got Skyfall and any of David Ficher's latest films in tow.

But digital has room for improvement: For example, depending on the director or cinematographer, night/dark scenes in digital can look video-ish, grainy, or overly dark.

I think some cinematographers should never ever get their hands on a digital camera. I'm talking about folks like Dante Spinotti, Dion Beebe, and Dean Semler. Those guys are phenomenal if they're working with film cameras, but a lot less so with digital. Semler's digital work on Click!, Date Night and Get Smart! was terrible. Beebe's work is mixed, especially for Miami Vice.

And don't get me started on Dante Spinotti's work on Public Enemies. It's like someone brought a camcorder and used it by mistake to shoot the movie with. It was just ugly and stuck out like a sore thumb. His work on Voyage of the Dawn Treader looked a lot better, but thanks to using the same camera for Public Enemies -- it still looked video-ish and grainy in spots.

 

[The Morningstar]

Public Enemies looked awful. You could see the artefacts and pixels in certain shots. But that was when shooting films with digital was kinda new-ish. The technology and knowledge about how to shoot has moved on.

 

[Octoberist]

I think some cinematographers should never ever get their hands on a digital camera. I'm talking about folks like Dante Spinotti, Dion Beebe, and Dean Semler. Those guys are phenomenal if they're working with film cameras, but a lot less so with digital. Semler's digital work on Click!, Date Night and Get Smart! was terrible. Beebe's work is mixed, especially for Miami Vice.

And don't get me started on Dante Spinotti's work on Public Enemies. It's like someone brought a camcorder and used it by mistake to shoot the movie with. It was just ugly and stuck out like a sore thumb. His work on Voyage of the Dawn Treader looked a lot better, but thanks to using the same camera for Public Enemies -- it still looked video-ish and grainy in spots.

Exactly. The richness similar to film can be duplicated onto digital, but it has to be done differently.

It just seems like Dante doesn't get it.

Look at Pirates 4's cinematography when compared to the first three films: It's drab and flat looking. Even documentaries now have a richer look than that. Digital can capture a certain reality that film can not do, but it's certainly not visually striking either.

 

[dark_b]

He shot digital for Adventures of Tintin because he saw it as an animated film, and not technically a live-action film. He still shoots live-action movies on film. Now Spielberg used to be hardcore old-school, as in he and Michael Kahn used to edit film on an Moviola and flatbed editor. (I think Nolan and Tarantino still edit that way.)

please lets not use Tintin in this thread since its an animated movie. it was created on the computer.

 

[mclay18]

Look at Pirates 4's cinematography when compared to the first three films: It's drab and flat looking.

It certainly had a new look, but it looked pretty consistent with the past three films IMO. It helped that Dariusz Wolski was the DP for all the films too.

 

[Doctor Jones]

It looked fine. This is all subjective anyhow. The technology is improving and filmmakers should have a choice. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. I see people here have done their homework and that's good. Filmmakers should really test both sides, though that will be hard already given their biases like Nolan and Tarantino.

But we can compare and contrast and show their disadvantages all day but it just goes back and forth and doesn't get anywhere.

Both are great in their own way. That goes without saying though, Public Enemies looks horrendous and makes me gag whenever I see it. Christ it's ****ing awful. But compared to 2009 and now, digital and its usage has gotten ALOT better. And it will continue to. By now, I can't even tell films that are shot digitally, and they look gorgeous. In their own unique way. Just like film. I hope filmmakers like Nolan and Tarantino at least try digital out at some point. They can't be stubborn about how film will always be superior without testing digital out first. It's fine to have a preference, just don't dismiss digital as inferior when they haven't even cared to try it.

Now it's hard for me to see Tarantino doing digital, given his view on films and his scope of what he puts into his films. It's fine if he'll continue to shoot. But the stubborn attitude is what I don't appreciate.

 

[Octoberist]

It certainly had a new look, but it looked pretty consistent with the past three films IMO. It helped that Dariusz Wolski was the DP for all the films too.

When I watched all the films back to back, you can tell there's a difference. It's not as rich. It looked gaudy at times.