Is filming digitally lazy?

[Carnotaur3]

As someone who's worked in both 35mm and Hi Def -

35mm does give off a more professional vibe and for w/e reason aids in an actors performance.

But digital is quickly catching up. It's not so much lazy as it is cheaper. But cheap doesn't mean quality, just price.

Indie film makers should utilize the professional aesthetic that hi def digital can pull off.
Once you have studio funding and a budget to work with, I'd say go with film to give off a "master quality" that Digital hasn't reached....... yet.

Long story short, it's mainly some bugs to be worked out with Digital that WILL eventually match / surpass film. Most film makers of yesterday are just stubborn and ultraconservative. If you want to tell me that the old way of editing is better than non-linear systems of today....

Paul Mooney: You must be on crack.

- Jow

PS: 3D is the only medium that is lazy, cheap (in every sense of the word) and will never be perfected.

I know Spielberg still edits on a real splicer, but I believe his argument against digital might be that digital allows you to be limitless and sometimes that's not always a good thing. However, I would never edit the old fashioned way. I wouldn't have the patience and plus I never got to learn it.

In some ways, I do think for the most part that even digital editing is lazy for a lot of filmmakers. It's amazing how long they last on each shot these days before cutting to another. They don't linger as much as they used to. And you can blame MTV for much of that I'm sure, but I'd also blame the advent of digital editing. When you actually had to cut and paste film together yourself, you forced yourself to find the right cuts. With the computer, you can make the cuts and reverse them if you wish. But now it's... make a cut and move on. When your were limited on time and couldn't afford to make mistakes, you made damn sure you were making a proper cut.

 

[Spider-Who?]

As someone who's worked in both 35mm and Hi Def -

35mm does give off a more professional vibe and for w/e reason aids in an actors performance.

But digital is quickly catching up. It's not so much lazy as it is cheaper. But cheap doesn't mean quality, just price.

Indie film makers should utilize the professional aesthetic that hi def digital can pull off.
Once you have studio funding and a budget to work with, I'd say go with film to give off a "master quality" that Digital hasn't reached....... yet.

Long story short, it's mainly some bugs to be worked out with Digital that WILL eventually match / surpass film. Most film makers of yesterday are just stubborn and ultraconservative. If you want to tell me that the old way of editing is better than non-linear systems of today....

Paul Mooney: You must be on crack.

- Jow

PS: 3D is the only medium that is lazy, cheap (in every sense of the word) and will never be perfected.

Really? Last I checked, it takes a lot of extra work to do 3D well, its expensive (both shooting in and conversion), and the quality of 3D is improved dramatically the past few years. Some one who made a lot of sense once said:

Most film makers of yesterday are just stubborn and ultraconservative.

Oh, snap! That was YOU!

 

[mclay18]

I think that's what Mann was going for too, never the less, I think the lightening sort of betrayed that or didn't suit 30 fps so it makes the audience watching it aware of the difference. The movie is too clean looking for 30fps.

It wasn't just the clean image, the lighting and color correction were a big giveaway. I think when Spinotti first came on to shoot Public Enemies, the plan was to shoot 35MM. Then Mann convinced him otherwise.

And it's not the framerate either, it's just the quality of the camera period.

 

[CelticPredator]

i like hes movies. but if i want to i can say that Tarantino is lazy. he is using a lot of homages in hes movies. and not as a wink to us. but almost like he is doing an exact copy. but this is an artistic decision right?

the problem with Tarantino is that he hates digital so much that everything he says is over teh line.

This is the stupidest thing i've ever heard.

He does not do exact copies....if you say this, then Avatar is a 100% copy of Dances With Wolves. Or Pocohantas.

So what if he hates digital. It's not a crime....it has it's flaws. It has it's pro's. It just depends on how you use it.

 

[Carnotaur3]

It wasn't just the clean image, the lighting and color correction were a big giveaway. I think when Spinotti first came on to shoot Public Enemies, the plan was to shoot 35MM. Then Mann convinced him otherwise.

And it's not the framerate either, it's just the quality of the camera period.

Actually, I just rewatched the trailer I could tell it was skipping from 30fps to 60fps. Varying frame rates. The problem isn't the quality of the camera, any camera with good glass lenses can look good. The problem is Mann likes 30 and 60 frame rates and they stick out in a 24 frame rate culture. I can believe the lighting and color correction not helping the situation, but the camera itself is not to blame.

 

[Spider-Who?]

This is the stupidest thing i've ever heard.

He does not do exact copies....if you say this, then Avatar is a 100% copy of Dances With Wolves. Or Pocohantas.

So what if he hates digital. It's not a crime....it has it's flaws. It has it's pro's. It just depends on how you use it.

no one is hating on him for his opinion on digital. People are hating on him for insulting and judging his fellow directors who use digital.

 

[mclay18]

The problem is Mann likes 30 and 60 frame rates and they stick out in a 24 frame rate culture. I can believe the lighting and color correction not helping the situation, but the camera itself is not to blame.

Yeah. Like I said, Spinotti used the same camera for the recent Narnia movie. But he and Apted set it at 24 frame rate and lit it well -- so yeah, the CineAlta isn't to blame.

 

[PWN3R]

Film is beautiful and there's something magical about it, no denying that. But the only reason digital images have not become the standard in film making is exactly what Anjow1060 said- most DP's today, all they know is film.

Look at Roger Deakins, one of the greats, just recently he said:

First film I’ve shot digitally, because, frankly, it’s the first camera I’ve worked with that I’ve felt gives me something I can’t get on film. Whether I’ll shoot on film again, I don’t know. [Shooting on Digital] gives me a lot more options. It’s got more latitude, it’s got better color rendition. It’s faster. I can immediately see what I’m recording. I can time that image on set with a color-calibrated monitor. That coloring goes through the whole system, so it’s tied with the meta-data of the image. So that goes through the whole post-production chain, so it’s not a case of being in a lab and having to sit and then time a shot on a shot-by-shot because this has already got a control on it that’s set the timing for the shot, you know?

http://www.slashfilm.com/roger-deakins-digital-35mm-im-ill-film/

Most aspiring film makers aren't lucky enough to shoot on film. They go digital, look at the whole DSLR revolution. So when those guys make it big, they're going to stick to what they know - digital.

I'm not saying one is better, I just don't understand some people's hesitation when it comes to this.

 

[dark_b]

This is the stupidest thing i've ever heard.

He does not do exact copies....if you say this, then Avatar is a 100% copy of Dances With Wolves. Or Pocohantas.

So what if he hates digital. It's not a crime....it has it's flaws. It has it's pro's. It just depends on how you use it.

but that was the point of my post. i dont think he does exact copies. but if you are angry you say something that is not true.

and dont writte '' so what if he hates digital''. he is not just against digital. he is saying that digital will destroy filmaking and cinema. i remember an interview he did in 2010 for the oscars.

 

[jnmx2000]

It wasn't just the clean image, the lighting and color correction were a big giveaway. I think when Spinotti first came on to shoot Public Enemies, the plan was to shoot 35MM. Then Mann convinced him otherwise.

And it's not the framerate either, it's just the quality of the camera period.

To me it looked like the film never went through the color correction phase. which is where most films get their look from. so it felt like i was watching the dailies edited into a film. that's what seemed weird about it.

 

[CelticPredator]

It could destroy it. People who are lazy, and dont know how to direct could use the technology to film crap without any sort of consequence. They could film and film and film, wasting time, and money.

Some people arent like this. Some people know what they want, and achive it. But some people, like George Lucas, do nothing new with it, and film lazy **** that looks terrible.

 

[mclay18]

I think the better question is: Should filmmakers switch over to digital? I mean, Steven Spielberg went digital for The Adventures of Tintin but keeps shooting his live-action films on 35MM. Christopher Nolan has steadfastly stuck to film (35MM, 65MM, IMAX), and is unlikely to switch over anytime soon.

I know some big directors have made the switch, but some of the older ones are holding on to film. I would love it if Nolan and Pfister used the Red One on a future project -- I think the RED has more advantages than what those guys think it can do. Color timing can be done on the spot, instant dailies viewing, and wider dynamic range than some films.

 

[SPIDERMAN117]

David Fincher is one of the few directors in hollywood that makes digital films look amazing. He truly understands how the lighting, color, and image should look.
My opinion, Digital is great because like Deakins said, you can playback the image right then and there and not have to worry about what happened to the shot when its in the labs and everything.
Right now, Im exposed to working on Super 8 Film and DSLR (Canon T2i) because I want to be able to work with both and understand the limitations of the digital and film medium. In the end, it doesnt mattter how fast a camera operates, or how quiet or noisy it is. It depends on how well you can contruct the image to get that "Cinema" look.

 

[Valaquen]

Charlie Chaplin once campaigned against sound in film. Ironically, it was his later sound films that were his most successful, such as The Great Dictator. I think most who make their fame and fortune in one given format will naturally defend it, especially if it's something they've tried, tested, and mastered over a career. Going digital may require some experimentation and risks that some may not want to take. Time well tell, but we have a habit of moving ever onward with technology, and film may very well become something relegated to strict traditionalists and may even attract some contrarians. I believe Ridley Scott is filming Prometheus digitally, and his cinematographer raved about the digital cameras a while back, saying:

In my opinion, the new Red Epic camera is about to revolutionize all spectrums of the film industry. I am going to use Epics in my new project directed by Ridley Scott. I am amazed with the quality of the image and the fact that you can shoot 5k at 120fps without compromising resolution, and most of all the size of the camera.
Combined with the Element Technica Atom 3d rig, we will be able to shoot a 3d movie with the flexibility of a conventional cinema camera.
I don't see anything that comes close to it at the moment. I can't even imagine the potential Epic will have on the big blockbuster industry as well as independent cinema."

It's catching on, y'know.

 

[Passdom]

I think the better question is: Should filmmakers switch over to digital? I mean, Steven Spielberg went digital for The Adventures of Tintin but keeps shooting his live-action films on 35MM. Christopher Nolan has steadfastly stuck to film (35MM, 65MM, IMAX), and is unlikely to switch over anytime soon.

I know some big directors have made the switch, but some of the older ones are holding on to film. I would love it if Nolan and Pfister used the Red One on a future project -- I think the RED has more advantages than what those guys think it can do. Color timing can be done on the spot, instant dailies viewing, and wider dynamic range than some films.

I think Nolan is the type of person who seems like he would be interested in experimenting with a lot of different formats.

I think Wally Pfister is holding him back, if anything. Not that he's a bad cinematographer, far from it, but from the interviews Ive read of him, he seems way too single minded in how he shoots now.

 

[Dark Victory]

Reading over this thread shows me how ignorant I am of the technological aspects of filmmaking. Gotta subscribe to American Cinematographer!

 

[JAK®]

It's snobbery, that's all it is. Using film was like an exclusive club. Digital filming means everyone can do it.

 

[CelticPredator]

No. I understand what the OP (not QT...since the article doesnt exist) People like RR and Fincher know how to use Digital. People like George Lucas, do not. He is the lazy one. He is the person who the supposed article talks about.

Lucas sits there, directs basic things, and keeps filming. That's ****ing lazy.

But when you're actually trying to get the best shots possible, then....you are awesome.

 

[mclay18]

I think Wally Pfister is holding him back, if anything. Not that he's a bad cinematographer, far from it, but from the interviews Ive read of him, he seems way too single minded in how he shoots now.

I don't think it's just Pfister. Nolan also likes to edit old-school like Spielberg, using flat-bed editing machines like the Moviola and Steenbeck. The case with Inception is that while Lee Smith was finishing up The Way Back, his assistant John Lee flew over and started assembling scenes for Nolan on the Avid. Then when Smith was finished, he and Lee used the Steenbeck for the rest.

But I think Nolan doesn't realize that it can cut down the workflow and actually give post-production breathing room. And the beauty with a digital camera like RED is that it allows for a direct digital transfer for DVD and high-def formats -- none of that digital noise and moire effects that plagued TDK's DVD release.

 

[antsman41]

I hate the fact when digital makes the actors look like the are a layer above the background. I don't know how to explain it past that put take DATE NIGHT, the actors always look superimposed into a scene. It didn't feel real...

FILM feels real...

 

[Bim]

Anyway, I gotta be honest and say I don't really care about the whole digital v film debate, I've seen good films done in both processes, I've seen bad films done in both processes. Is digital 'lazy'? I'd hardly call it that, perhaps 'convenient' is a better word but I don't understand the issue to begin with. To me it's like arguing over whether black and white is more 'artistic' than colour, just make the damn movie however you want, if it's good I'll watch it.

Nicely put, and i agree with u

 

[Octoberist]

I'm telling ya all right now - I'm more worried about James Cameron wanting a higher frame rate than anything else right now.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Higher frame rates actually look better, IMO. But that may be cuz I'm an animator by day, and like a nice and smooth look to hand drawn.

They are not to be confused with the "smoothing" effect most TV's have these days. Totally different, technically and visually.

 

[Bunker]

I hate the fact when digital makes the actors look like the are a layer above the background. I don't know how to explain it past that put take DATE NIGHT, the actors always look superimposed into a scene. It didn't feel real...

FILM feels real...

I notice this effect in every single video I watch on Vimeo. Do all DSLRs look the same?

 

[Bunker]

Also, here's the snippet of the article I was talking about. Sorry for not posting it earlier...

Can you imagine yourself making a film like 'Sin City'?

I would have thought not. I'm not a fan of digital. And I sound like I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth when it comes to Robert. When Robert does it, it's great. That's where Robert is coming from. He just wants to do everything himself and digital allows him to do that. Why would you hire a cinematographer? If you're doing a digital movie it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. All you need to do is look to the screen to see if you like it. Gaffer do this, do that... you could be your own cinematographer. No cinematographer should be promoting digital. It makes them as obsolete as a dodo bird. But in the case of Sin City, and probably 300, you know you could never have made those movies on film.

I thought it might have intrigued you to make those films.

To me 97 per cent of the use of digital is laziness. They are trying to make it easier on themselves, and it shows. If you don't care enough about your movie to shoot it yourself, I don't care enough about it enough to see it. But in those cases where they are creating a whole new cinematic landscape, I can't be churlish about that. I've got to give it up. It adds another possibility in which to tell stories, and create pictures. But normally, even with, say, what David Fincher used in Zodiac, I think what the **** is that about? I found it more interesting in my brain than I did watching it. I thought Apocalypto was a masterpiece. Then I found out he did it in digital and it lessened the effort for me. Using this Mount Everest analogy again, the mountain got smaller and the achievement was a little less.

The rest of the interview not relating to digital stuff: http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/feature/49432