Film vs. Digital Documentary: SIDE BY SIDE

[Octoberist]

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.

In the next few years, QT won't have much of a choice. (Though I have a theory that film will be around but only through smaller emerging companies.)

However, we're in the stage where we're gonna have some beautiful looking digital films (Promethius, Skyfall) and uneven ones like (and I hate to say it) The Great Gatsby and Gangster Squad, where the quality is inconsistent but still watchable.

 

[Man in the Suit]

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.

Yeah. Pirates 4 is ugly.

 

[mclay18]

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.

Really? I thought the movie looked more subdued and compositions weren't as well done, but I didn't see any of that horrid video noise, blocking or other video-related nastiness that plagues digitally-shot movies not filmed on Red or Alexa.

It didn't look quite as rich but it still looked consistent. You can tell Wolski supervised all four movies, regardless.

 

[Doctor Jones]

In the next few years, QT won't have much of a choice. (Though I have a theory that film will be around but only through smaller emerging companies.)

However, we're in the stage where we're gonna have some beautiful looking digital films (Promethius, Skyfall) and uneven ones like (and I hate to say it) The Great Gatsby and Gangster Squad, where the quality is inconsistent but still watchable.

I don't think so. The likes of Tarantino will still have that choice. Lesser directors, possibly. But I hope film doesn't suddenly disappear. I don't think it will. Whenver something is new, peopleoverreact in thinking this new thing will take over quickly and completely.

But I still think Great Gatsby and Gangster Squad look great and I didn't even recognize it as digital.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Really? I thought the movie looked more subdued and compositions weren't as well done, but I didn't see any of that horrid video noise, blocking or other video-related nastiness that plagues digitally-shot movies not filmed on Red or Alexa.

It didn't look quite as rich but it still looked consistent. You can tell Wolski supervised all four movies, regardless.

It doesn't bother me because the cinematography in the sequels got bolder in terms of color compared to the first one.

 

[Hurm...]

You can definitely tell Gatsby is digital.

 

[Octoberist]

Again, The Great Gasby looks beautiful but then you get these shots where you can tell its digital. It's hard to explain but I keep saying 'camcorder'. So there's shots where it looks like film but then the quality drops by 8% in other minimal shots. I noticed it too with Gangster Squad.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Hadn't noticed either.

The only thing that convinced me was the fact that 3D films are shot in digital.

 

[Black Narcissus]

 

[mclay18]

Chris Nolan again expresses his disdain for digital cameras:

http://www.deadline.com/2012/06/chr...r-digital-produced-by-conference/#more-284061

It seems like he isn't looking at sophisticated digital cameras like the Arri Alexa or the Red Epic. I can see where Nolan is coming from, in terms of hidden costs and such, but in terms of look -- it's reached that point where you can shoot digitally and it not look cheap, but rich and film-like.

Sounds like he's got his head in the sand... again.

 

[rashad]

^Probably should've added the last part.

With all that, Nolan did not entirely shut the door on shooting in digital himself. “When it is as good as film and makes economic sense, I’d be completely open to it.”

 

[mclay18]

^Probably should've added the last part.

From the sounds of it, he just seemed to add it on so that his peers won't blow up at him. Especially for a few others that switched like Jackson, Fincher, and Cameron.

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

Nolan's an old-school guy who wants his movies to be like the ones that inspired him. I think I'd be a little crushed if he ever made a digital movie.

 

[mclay18]

Nolan's an old-school guy who wants his movies to be like the ones that inspired him. I think I'd be a little crushed if he ever made a digital movie.

I understand that point too... but at the rate of digital cameras and filmmaking progressing rapidly, the gap between film and digital is indistinguishable now. I'd wish Nolan would stop referring to it as "video, like television." The man has done his homework in terms of the hidden costs of maintaining HQ versions digitally-shot films and workflow, but he clearly hasn't tested out various digital cameras, latitude, portability, and the quality of images from the get-go.

There's a reason a lot of cinematographers and directors have switched over to digital -- they can see the image as it is, color-time it on set, and they don't have to fret about how the processed dailies will look the next day. It's convenient, and allows more time for the production to focus on other things. Nolan should be grateful he started his career out on Super 16mm when he was able to, because if he was shooting a low-budget film like Memento now, he'd be tremendously grateful at how much money he'd save from shooting it on a Canon 5D Mark II or whatever digital camera he could use.

 

[DACrowe]

The gap is still very distinguishable. Digital is cheaper and I do not begrudge independent films and young filmmakers using it for the necessity of realizing a vision at a cost-effective level. I even think it can be done in a cinematic and pleasing way (Fincher's last three movies come to mind). However, there is still a gap and digital is nowhere near film. I think film being processed for DVD, Bluray and digital projectors may have blurred the line a little, but film has a unique quality in the way it processes light and texture that is still unsurpassed.

 

[Call Me Darkman]

Film fans just like the dirty look of film. It's as simple as that. Digital is a very crisp and clear image. Even if you fake it, it's never gonna be the real thing. But fact remains, filmmakers, in general, have always wanted clearer images and brighter colors. If you compare a film from 2012 to one from 1962, the difference is night and day. Digital is the natural progression of moviemaking. It has been over 100 years since film was created and clearly there's no where else to go with it. We've reached the peak.

 

[Bruce Malone]

Props to nolan for sticking to his guns. The thing a lot of you are forgetting is that in the future it won't be an either or scenario for digitla vs film the studios will eventually start forcing the directors to only use digital due to costs.

Nolan and the other big name guys like QT have the influence to keep woth film but the little guys won't. Nolan is looking out for their sake as well.

Film fans just like the dirty look of film. It's as simple as that. Digital is a very crisp and clear image. Even if you fake it, it's never gonna be the real thing. But fact remains, filmmakers, in general, have always wanted clearer images and brighter colors. If you compare a film from 2012 to one from 1962, the difference is night and day. Digital is the natural progression of moviemaking. It has been over 100 years since film was created and clearly there's no where else to go with it. We've reached the peak.

Wrong wrong wrong. 35 mm Film is still the premiere format for feature picture clarity we have not even reached films full potential for picture clarity yet. 35 MM film has 4000 to 6000 lines of resolution compared to watching let's say 1080p which has 1080 lines of resolution.

 

[Poetic Chaos]

So this is on Netflix streaming now. It's 95% on RT. Anyone watch it? I both really enjoyed watching it and found it informative. I love seeing the greats talk about their craft.

 

[Kane52630]

I saw it a couple months ago and yeah it's very informative on not only film but more importantly the history of digital. Also I found Pfister and Nolan to be like two old geezers when talking trash about digital and put film on a somewhat pretentious level.

 

[redhawk23]

I don't think so. The likes of Tarantino will still have that choice. Lesser directors, possibly. But I hope film doesn't suddenly disappear. I don't think it will. Whenver something is new, peopleoverreact in thinking this new thing will take over quickly and completely.

But I still think Great Gatsby and Gangster Squad look great and I didn't even recognize it as digital.

When the very few companies that provide the vast majority of film stock all decide to shut down production, I don't think its an overreaction.

 

[dark_b]

ok lets do this

 

[dark_b]

 

[jacobed]

Still gotta go with film but I find both sides fascinating and neither side is really wrong. It's really just about the director's preference. But once again the movie reminded that James Cameron is a complete *****e

 

[747]

Yeah it's not black and white for me. There is awesome digital photography and there is awesome film photography, just like there is bad photography on both sides. It's all about context and execution. They do have different qualities though and I would hate for the film option to all but disappear at this point.

Either way, that's why I need to see this movie, cause being on no particular side I think I will find it very interesting and informative. And like someone else mentioned, it's always awesome to hear your favorite directors talk about their craft. I mean just look at the gif above; Fincher, Scorsese, Nolan and Cameron are all some of my absolute favorite directors.

 

[Tim_Riggins]

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.