Is filming digitally lazy?

[Carnotaur3]

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

Look, digital has its place, but there is a difference between the two. They have different looks. It's all a matter of preference.

 

[matrix_ghost]

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?

So when he was sitting with Cameron , Kathryn Bigelow and others during an interview with oscar nominated directors , he couldn't have said the same thing in Cameron's face
Instead he's there just "complimenting" his fellow directors.

 

[C. Lee]

lol you're goin waaay back huh?

Not really, it was just ananology.....I could have just as easily said some male actors didn't like it when females were allowed to become actors.

Look, digital has its place, but there is a difference between the two. They have different looks. It's all a matter of preference.

Which was my point. Some one will always prefer something else.

Some will prefer stage acting to film.
Some will prefer sound over silent.
Some will prefer color over black and white.
Some will prefer etc, etc, etc.........

 

[MadVillainy]

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?

yeah thats what IM thinking

 

[C. Lee]

Some say using CGI is lazy compared to making models and matte paintings.....I say is making models and matte paintings lazy compared to actually building a to full scale replica of NYCity to be destroyed for an apocolyptic movie?

To me, a movie maker should experiment with al new forms of filmmaking and see what works best for him and the audience.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Lol

Look, digital has its place, but there is a difference between the two. They have different looks. It's all a matter of preference.

Which seems to be getting narrower by the day.

 

[dark_b]

when we say that film looks better we mean '' we are used to watching movies filmed with film because our brain got used ot it '' ?

am i correct?

 

[dark_b]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aklyZSo07vk

 

[mclay18]

No, it's not. The great thing about digital is that the DOP and director can see the results right away, and it allows the editor to start work right away if there's a time crunch.

And the quality of the higher-end cameras, like the Red One and Panavision Genesis, is comparable to 35mm if lit and shot right. If not, it looks like an expensive YouTube video (like Michael Mann's previous two films).

But I do prefer the texture of film. Digital has come a LONG way, but I don't think it's surpassed film yet. Both film and digital are good.

 

[Spider-Who?]

when we say that film looks better we mean '' we are used to watching movies filmed with film because our brain got used ot it '' ?

am i correct?

Absolutely. All those reasons why people love the look of film (ie: the grain), is in reality, nothing more than the imperfections of that particular medium. We've all grown accustomed to it over the decades and that's what we're used to, so that's what we like. We've based all our filming and lighting and editing techniques around the limitations of film, and the idea of changing to fit another medium drives people crazy.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

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

Not on your TV screen, commercial projector or home computer you can't.

 

[Carnotaur3]

Absolutely. All those reasons why people love the look of film (ie: the grain), is in reality, nothing more than the imperfections of that particular medium. We've all grown accustomed to it over the decades and that's what we're used to, so that's what we like. We've based all our filming and lighting and editing techniques around the limitations of film, and the idea of changing to fit another medium drives people crazy.

Grain isn't an imperfection. Grain makes the image you see. Pixels make the image you see in digital. Check this comparison out Panasonic AG-AF100 camera (I happen to own this) and regular 16mm film:http://www.vimeo.com/18066097

 

[redhawk23]

Fincher's movies just have a different asthetic, which I dig. Overall I still prefer the look of film, but those who know how to use it, use it well. I'd imagine it changes the way you have to light things and such, how is that lazy?

That stated Public Enemies looked horrible. it was very disapointing.

 

[redhawk23]

Not on your TV screen, commercial projector or home computer you can't.

Public Enemies looks like crap on anyscren large or small.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Grain isn't an imperfection. Grain makes the image you see. Pixels make the image you see in digital. Check this comparison out Panasonic AG-AF100 camera (I happen to own this) and regular 16mm film:http://www.vimeo.com/18066097

True, but visible grain and pixels, are imperfections in an image. If I look at a digital image from a reasonable distance, and can see the pixels, I would call that an imperfection. Likewise, if I look at film from a reasonable distance and see grain, I would call that an imperfection as well. The only difference between the two mentalities is that we have been looking at the "imperfection" in film for so long, that we've evolved to see it as a welcomed trademark of that medium.

Its the same situation when speaking in terms of recording music. Recording analog sounds better because our ears are used to analog's imperfections and natural characteristics while we think digital sounds worse because we aren't used to digital's imperfections and characteristics.

All that being said, I really don't care one way or another for film v. digital. Whichever the director wants to use, good for them. It's their call and **** Tarantino (or anyone else) who says otherwise; regardless of what they choose. It's art and you should be able to use whatever medium you please without judgement.

 

[def28]

Depth of field is better with film, video has always looked more flat. But as many have already said that is become more narrow very quick.

Video is cheaper,easier to light, fast immediate results and better for actors.

Check this comparison out Panasonic AG-AF100 camera (I happen to own this) and regular 16mm film:http://www.vimeo.com/18066097

How does the AF100 do in low light? Might be looking to get one but low lighting is key for me.

 

[Carnotaur3]

How does the AF100 do in low light? Might be looking to get one but low lighting is key for me.

It really depends on the lenses you get for it. Better glass (sharper, and opens it up for more light) = more expensive choices.

 

[Batman713]

I love Tarantino's films but man is he a ****ing *****ebag. There's no need to badmouth your fellow directors. What a ****ing prick.

 

[Motown Marvel]

i dont think shooting digital is lazy. but i think CGI is often abused because film makers are too lazy and unimaginative to produce traditional effects, which often look better.

i do think film looks way better than digital though.

 

[Doctor Jones]

It's not lazy. It's an artistic choice. Fincher is the prime example. He loves multiple takes (he even used digital blood in Zodiac because of it) and if you can make it look great and not like how Michael Mann uses it, then great. i didn't even know Zodiac was shot digitally until I found out. Guess what? It still doesn't look digital.

Film is excellent no doubt, and for tranditionalists, which is never a bad thing. But to autmotatically dismiss it is foolish.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

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

Attack of the Clones was shot with the Sony CineAlta.

CineAlta cameras record onto HDCAM tapes, XDCAM Professional Discs or SxS flash memory cards. They have the ability to shoot at various frame rates including 24fps and have a resolution of up to 1920 by 1080 pixels. The camera can be used with a Miranda DVC 802 converter. This allows the camera to output SDI, DV and multiple HD outputs.

In 2000 George Lucas announced that Episode II of the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy would be the first major motion picture to be shot 100% digitally. Sony and Panavision had teamed up to develop the High Definition 24P camera that Lucas would use to accomplish this and thus the first CineAlta camera was born: the Sony HDW-F900 (also called the Panavision HD-900F after being "panavised"). However, the science-fiction film Vidocq was actually the first released feature that was shot entirely with digital cinematography.

For Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith the more advanced Sony HDC-F950 was used, with higher resolution and better color reproduction than its predecessor. The film was cropped to a 2.35:1 aspect ratio from its native 16:9 frame. As a result only 817 of the 1080 vertical pixels were actually used; but there is an anamorphic adaptor lens from Canon, which allows shooting in 2.35:1 without losing any pixels. Manuel Huerga's Salvador (2006 film) is the first movie shot with this adaptor.

source: wikipedia

 

[Asteroid-Man]

Public Enemies looks like crap on anyscren large or small.

That was because of a ****** transfer.

 

[Spider-Fan]

QT is an idiot to say that. Shooting digitally is cheaper, so struggling filmmakers can more easily shoot digitally than with film. Also, digital film is getting better. It isn't lazy if it gives you more freedom and you use it properly.

Sure, film looks better and prob always will. But, digital will get close to it soon enough.

 

[KRIM]

Is it technically feasible for digital to actually become a definitively better medium than film? I always hear of digital catching up and making innovations, but at what point could it exceed it in terms of picture quality?

 

[def28]

How long ago was that interview where he said that? Was it post Sin City? He shot the Jackie Boy/Dwight scene in Digital. On the Special Features they show in between takes cause the camera just rolls and no one was complaining. I know Rodriguez tried introducing him to shooting digital that way but I dont remember him being 100% against it. Just that he himself prefers film. Rodriguez is 100% pro digital and one of his best friends in the biz hes not personally attacking every Digital Director.

I wouldnt take those QT comments seriously. Hes a film purist and most artists dont like change.