Is filming digitally lazy?

[Bunker]

I was reading an interview with Quentin Tarantino where he said the only reason directors shot on digital is because they are lazy. He specifically called out David Fincher. On one hand, I disagree with him. If a filmmaker thinks using digital will help him get better takes with actors and the like, he shouldn't be ridiculed for it. On the other hand, I definitely see where Quentin is coming from. Celluloid has always been seen as a hallmark of professional moviemaking. It represents a clear dividing line between amateurs and pros because it looks very cinematic and traditional. So, what is your opinion on big time directors turning to digital? Do the pros of using it outweigh the "easy way out" stigma?

 

[Spider-Who?]

Lazy? No. Going with digital actually allows you to work more. If you’re able to see and edit shots instantly, you’re able to do a lot more with that saved time. Tarantino is just one of the countless people who see something new and instead of embracing or trying to understand it, they’d rather insult and ridicule.

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

Doesn't Robert Rodriguez use digital?

Do they fight about it?

 

[Rocketman]

Digital is incredibly lazy. And regardless if people think I'm lying... I CAN tell the difference between film and digital.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

Digital has its flaws at the moment, but it will get better. I think, in the end, it's a good thing.

And laziness is not automatically a bad thing.

 

[MadVillainy]

Ignorant question: What's the big deal over digital vs. film.
Image is different right? And doesnt it allow a director to have more takes?

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

Digital is incredibly lazy. And regardless if people think I'm lying... I CAN tell the difference between film and digital.

Ok, go watch the Phantom Menace, and see if you can tell where Lucas used digital, and where he used regular film, cause he challenged people to tell the difference by watching that film. I don't know if there is a guide to tell you which scenes are which, or you have to go round to Lucas' house with your list, but I am guessing you would not get it right all the time.

 

[Rocketman]

What it ultimately amounts to is:

- the equipment is easier to use, that is to say, it's smaller
- editing digital video is easier because it's simply uploaded to a computer
- it's easier to manipulate that video with effects

The keyword here is EASIER. Easier does not mean BETTER.

For me, nothing will top the beauty of seeing 35mm or 70mm on a big screen, or even on a crappy TV.

The other thing about digital is that cinematography suffers too, when it comes to lighting, lenses, focusing, sound. Digital takes away hard, honest work.

When I say "hard, honest work", I use this as an example: While it may be visually stunning and awe-inspiring to watch the Pixar movies, I find it even more unbelievable that human hands drew, colored, and flipped the pages that made Snow White, Cinderella, Bambi, Aladdin, The Lion King, and so on. There's something more "authentic" about Aladdin as opposed to Toy Story (and Toy Story is one of my favorite movies of all-time).

So, while digital filming has produced fantastic movies (I love David Fincher, and Zodiac is a classic)... it's still never going to replace real film.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

So I guess you are not prepared to put your super-digi-vision to the Pepsi Menace challenge?

 

[Rocketman]

So I guess you are not prepared to put your super-digi-vision to the Pepsi Menace challenge?

19 minutes after you just mentioned it?

Sure, I'll do it. How about when I have time?

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

19 minutes after you just mentioned it?

Sure, I'll do it. How about when I have time?

Well, you didn't answer me, so i thought you might not have wanted to do it, cause, in all seriousness, I have tried to do it myself, and can't figure out which are the digital shots and which are the celluloid.
It is all well and good talking about the technical differences, and we know that celluloid gives greater depth etc, but I think sometimes the differences are not that noticable to our eyes, maybe if it was on blu-ray, yeah, I have only seen one film on blu-ray(Watchmen), so I can see the possibility that digital shots may be more noticable to our eyes there.

But, I have to disagree with some of your sentiments, about some artforms being more 'authentic' than others, yeah, I appreciate a good drawing over a CG rendered image, but that is down to personal taste really. Toy Story is just as authentic as any hand drawn animation, the CG benefits it's telling enormously. It's kind of like saying that a record can only be truly great if it consists of live instrumentation, as opposed to samples, whether of musical cues, or experimental use and manipulation of captured sounds from anywhere. and it's simply not true.

Don't get me wrong, i am all for having the best picture quality, and think Tarantino has a point, but it should not be discounted as being a viable format, just as viable as celluloid if it has creative advantages for the type of image you are trying to create. ie better for inserting digital images into the frames or whatever, or even as Bunker said, weighing up the pros of getting more takes with the actors to give more chance of the better performances being on film.
Tarantino is great, but he is a bit of an old fart when it comes to film moving on into new technical territory, like his famous quote about the Matrix Reloaded in comparison to Kill bill, how he would have stuck his penis into a Nintendo(he did not specify which console, although i guess the N64 as it had that little bit at the front that came off for memory cartridges or whatever) if he had wanted to do that kind of ****, the frcikin Wachowskis were trying to push the boat out a bit there, were they totally successful? No, but they were trying to show us something new at least there.

 

[Man in the Suit]

So I guess you are not prepared to put your super-digi-vision to the Pepsi Menace challenge?

Or maybe, just maybe, he doesn't want to watch a horrible movie.

 

[GhostPoet]

I was reading an interview with Quentin Tarantino where he said the only reason directors shot on digital is because they are lazy. He specifically called out David Fincher. On one hand, I disagree with him. If a filmmaker thinks using digital will help him get better takes with actors and the like, he shouldn't be ridiculed for it. On the other hand, I definitely see where Quentin is coming from. Celluloid has always been seen as a hallmark of professional moviemaking. It represents a clear dividing line between amateurs and pros because it looks very cinematic and traditional. So, what is your opinion on big time directors turning to digital? Do the pros of using it outweigh the "easy way out" stigma?

I don't see it as lazy. To me it's like saying "Is turing a light switch on lazy as opposed to lighting a candle?" Both are nice...but I see the light switch as progress. Just as I see digital filming as progress. It doesn't mean there won't be a place for traditional filming (or a candle).

 

[TruerToTheCore]

Keep in mind:

Rick McCallum, a producer on Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones, has commented that the production spent $16,000 for 220 hours of digital tape, where a comparable amount of film would have cost $1.8 million.

And please note that the Star Wars movies were shot with 1920x1080, the Red One digital camera shoots with 4096x2304 (which is about the same as classic 35mm film). In the future every film can be shot at IMAX 70mm with ease, digitally.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

Or maybe, just maybe, he doesn't want to watch a horrible movie.

Yeah, you almost make me want to use a rolls eyes smiley there, which i have never stooped to using in my life, so that's how predictable that retort was. And I know I don't have to point out to you the fact that the film's content is not the point of the excercise, it's a unique opportunity for a techno buff to put his money where his mouth is, and see if they can tell the difference. as, of course, you just want to sit at home and look for opportunities to type up the usual 'horrible' digs, try and be unique man, please.

 

[Passdom]

Keep in mind:



And please note that the Star Wars movies were shot with 1920x1080, the Red One digital camera shoots with 4096x2304 (which is about the same as classic 35mm film). In the future every film can be shot at IMAX 70mm with ease, digitally.

this, THIS

Hopefully the Red EPIC will forever shut up the doubters of digital

 

[Boom]

I really don't care if it's "lazy." So long as it's a quality film that is nice to look at, why should I care how it was shot?

 

[KRIM]

And please note that the Star Wars movies were shot with 1920x1080, the Red One digital camera shoots with 4096x2304 (which is about the same as classic 35mm film). In the future every film can be shot at IMAX 70mm with ease, digitally.

You have a source for that? That seems remarkably low and non-conducive to future higher-resolution formats.

 

[cky]

- the equipment is easier to use, that is to say, it's smaller
- editing digital video is easier because it's simply uploaded to a computer
- it's easier to manipulate that video with effects

Thomson VIPER FilmStream Camera is the same size as a Arri Film Camera. Same with the Arri Digital Cameras. Same with the Panasonic Genesis camera. Sure, RED's camera system might be a bit smaller but you can find small film cameras too.

Also, it still takes a good amount of time to transfer all the digital footage to the servers. Same with the film transfer to digital. Regardless, it's a lengthy process either way.

And it's not easier to manipulate effects whether it's film or digital. The computer doesn't care if the footage is shot on film or digital since it's all digital within the computer.

But to the original point, I don't think filming digitally is lazy. Far from it, it still takes the same amount of work to produce a good well light and composed shot either it's film or digital.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I don't see it as lazy. To me it's like saying "Is turing a light switch on lazy as opposed to lighting a candle?" Both are nice...but I see the light switch as progress. Just as I see digital filming as progress. It doesn't mean there won't be a place for traditional filming (or a candle).

Except in this case, the candle looks far better. There really is no argument. Film just looks better.

 

[GhostPoet]

Except in this case, the candle looks far better. There really is no argument. Film just looks better.

That's a matter of opinion though. For me certain films look better digital than others. Some have a better look digitally while other films just don't come out as well digitally. Sometimes film grain is actually needed to improve the appearance of scenes...because that's how the director designed it.

 

[xwolverine2]

there are advances with digital cameras now where you just cant tell the difference...

lazy isnt even in the equation... more like costly. using film is much more expensive than digital, not to mention more time consuming(and time = money and quality). Especially seeing as how everything is edited digitally anyways.. even quentins movies.

is editing digitally lazy? no.. its common sense.
films has its flaws too... so everyone saying that film is perfect is dead wrong.

and imax film is about to be matched against RED's EPIC camera...

you have to take into account that quentin actually loves the flaws of film and shooting with film... thats why he continues to use it and detests digital.

 

[Carnotaur3]

The fact of the matter is... digital is just cheaper. But film will always look better because the image is made from grain, not pixels. You have to get exposure right to create the image, so in that way, yes it is harder. Someday I hope to shoot 35mm and God help me... 70mm. But for low budget filmmakers digital is where it's at. I just hope film doesn't go away.

Hey, ask Nolan and Pfister what they think of film.

 

[C. Lee]

A lot of people didn't lke it when film was invented....it took away from the ACTOR'S perormance.

 

[xwolverine2]

lol you're goin waaay back huh?