Film vs Digital: The Big Debate || Spotlight
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 09. 2016
- The spotlight we have all been waiting for. Cooke Optics TV shares interviews with world renowned cinematographers to get their insights on how the filmmaking process has changed from the early days of film to the introduction and improvement of digital processes.
---
Website www.cookeoptics.com
Facebook / cookeoptics
Twitter / cooke_optics
Linkedin: / 2831810
Instagram / cookeoptics
---
Production Company Credits:
Aardman Animations (presents) (as Aardman Features)
DreamWorks Animation (presents)
ddwalde (CZcams)
Headline Pictures
BBC Films
DCM Productions (co-production)
Finola Dwyer Productions
Wildgaze Films
---
Cooke Optics TV
www.cookeoptics.tv
Thank you to the British Society of Cinematographers (BSC). www.bscine.com/
Filmed with a Sony FS100 and FS5 using Cooke Mini S4/i Lenses.
Produced by ImageNova. www.imagenova.co.uk.
Email contact@imagenova.co.uk for enquires or leave a comment! - Krátké a kreslené filmy
I've been directing since 1998 and I'm grateful to have experienced shooting on film for the first half of my career before digital became more widely used. The skills, understanding and discipline you build shooting on film are invaluable in my opinion. Today I commonly encounter cameramen who have never shot a frame of film in their lives and it saddens me that they probably will never experience the joy of shooting on film.
@9:11, it'd be difficult to get a roll of black & white film into that Nikon...
SHUT UP MIKE
I promise. I was silent the entire time I typed it.
The Nikon at @9:11 is the DF, a digital camera, not a film body.
Yes but it looks old ;-)
6:24, sounds like just bad project management, not really an issue with digital.
My take on the film vs digital debate is that both formats have their advantages. for digital, digital cameras exceed film cameras in low light, and the form factors of digital cinema cameras can be compact such as the Red, Arri Alexa mini, and the Canon Cinema eos cameras. and as for film, the person can scan the footage to digital in any resolution that the cinematographer wish.
Personally I would rather shoot in digital because it is easier to capture footage in low light. If I had the chance to shoot Super 35mm film, then I'm willing to give film a chance, I love the highlight rendition on film. not mant digital cinema cameras except the Arri Alexa cameras can compete with film.
Really enjoyed hearing different perspectives on this topic.
I was fortunate enough to shoot a short on 16mm film and although it had a very distinct look I found the workflow behind it much more cumbersome than digital. Two very different mediums, each there to cater to a particular type of story. It's just very sad that filmmakers in the near future will likely not have film as an option to tell their story in a certain way.
What was cumbersome? The on set workflow or in post?
Anton Seaman A bit of both. On set you need extra people and take extra steps when shooting film. Digital gives you a lot more liberties and a lot more forgiveness when shooting on set. I actually only had very few cans of film that I could use for that particular project and running out of film is terrifying.
For the Post side you need to send the film to get processed and if you are the DP you usually need to go to where the film is processed so that the digital scan you get back fits your visual needs.
Aesthetically I really like film but it is way out of my reach for the time being and considering the turn around rate my projects need to have.
This interview lays out why I think all DPs should at least be able to grade their own footage and should always been in the color suite during finishing. More and more it is where the final image is being created, with the trend towards shooting RAW I think it will become even more important.
It's all about story. Here's a good story. I sold my horse and bought a car.
But the horse is a sentient being. The car isn’t 😭
No, it's a dumb story lol. Movies = dreams, and in order to produce the magical dreamy quality, they must be on celluloid, and in black and white/silver screen (with only few exceptions). Clear to you? Well, Cinema died at the end of the 50s with the fall of the studio star system and the golden era, so whether movies today are done on film or not, is irrelevant, cuz it will always turn up crap😅
@6:40 Not convinced that it's easier to reshoot a closeup than have the editor/assistant editor find it...Sounds like hyperbole.
Haha yeah that's ridiculous...
Yeah, that just tells me they're not taking good notes - and that their media ingest process is missing a step. When editing, you should have ALL the footage ingested and it should have scene numbers and takes as metadata. Not being able to find a shot during editing isn't the fault of digital vs film, it's the fault of shoddy work between the set and the editing bay. If you label and ingest your takes properly, this doesn't happen.
Ya, what ever happened to assembly and logging? haha
Andrew Birchett i imagine a 1000 video files sitting in one folder with no names
I got goosebumps when he said go and get a pentax. I did just that weeks ago and i'm learning more than I could with my dslr. I absolutely love the focus you get with film, every shot is money so you better make them count.
I think after shooting film for a while. When you go back to digital, you don't just spray and hope for the good image. or fill your card. You think about each and every single shot the same you would with film.
I got an old Canon DSLR for the same reason.
This video is so good!! I wish I could be on the set with film era discipline, really hate when Directors I worked with before helled " Don't Cut, RESET" all the time
The best conversation on the film vs digital subject I've seen yet.
I worked in film in Hong Kong and did sound production as a foley and assistant sound editor for a few films. For me, a mileage of film clips is cumbersome, to say the least. Looking into a flatbed moviola screen with reames of film clips to be mated with sound clips was a tedious process. Thank heavens that has changed!
1:05 The number of movies I've been to this year that had wobbly eyes and pixelated faces, it's relentless. I can't believe The Revenant won best cinematography, the whole time Leo's eyes looked like he had a toothbrush in his mouth.
I agree with some critics who observe that a movie shot badly on film somehow still looks better than one shot on digital. Film just has more more personality and life.
Wonderful stuff from Cooke. Thank you so much. You earned my sub
Why can't we have film AND digital?
I'm all for that. If only we can convince the companies to support both. Kodak went all corporate on us and folded up its slide film completely rather than have a small company that was merely profitable.
film is expensive
From the sounds of it, the reason is down to demand. Only a small number of directors still shoot on Film, and the labs and manufacturers can not afford to operate if demand is so low.
Digital shooting for major films is extremely short sited. Film can constantly (to a certain point) be re-scanned as digital imaging continues to progress for remastering
Without really losing quality (to a certain point). I can watch a Blu-ray remaster of Ben Hurr that was filmed in the 1950s and looks absolutely brilliant because we are able to go back and rescan the original negatives. What happens 20 years in the future when we all have 16K displays but our favorite old films of the 2010s were shot in 8K or worse? Some horrible attempt at upscaling? We're making disposable content now. I understand film has a point where it's too grainy when enlarged too much.... But that is WAY less limiting than a set number of pixels.
Absolutely the case. 480 or 720 or 1080 for that matter, will always be what it was when it was scanned. And in time it will look like crap by comparison.
Film's resolution is usually around 8-16k resolution equivalent. So if we are shooting at 8-16k we are not losing any "future proofing" compared to film.
Also digital upscaling algorithms will get so good to the point that there are no artifacts or digital noise, so you could turn a 480p DVD copy of a film into something that would look great on a 300" cinema screen.
adapt or die it seems. digital is here to stay. best to perfect it and get on with life.
With directors like Stephen Spielberg and Chris Nolan and other directions who are still shooting on film 🎥 I guess Kodak will keep making film stock hopefully for years to come
Plz top me
This was really helpful to me as I never did Film for Motion I only ever did Film for Stills. I have always done Video or Digital for Motion because of that I never learned the much needed skill of imagining the scene before you turn on the camera. In fact my current workflow would probably appall a Film Based Cinematographer as I turn on the camera and roll as I set the scene up. I make audio notes to myself while recording and when I get the shot the way I want I stop. Then I review the footage to see if I might have missed something or see something I like more. As I said, Thank you very much for this video it really appreciate it.
You should storyboard more
I want to shoot a feature at least on 16mm or even 35mm sometime in my life, just to get the experience and see how it's be done for decades.
Great job on this piece.
I like both !
what is digital film? what what does it involve and how does it work? etc..
I cant help but feel somewhat emotional about FILM.... Being use to the digital format I gotta say there is a part of the legacy in film I would want to keep alive. I understand the budget of film may not be viable for most projects, but I really hope we don't lose it entirely. I hope to one day direct a film on FILM :)
just silly sentiment ay!
The ending is the only thing that matters. 🤣🤣🤣 Perfection.
When it comes to film in the end it's all about money. It cost alot to shoot on film and develop it. Labs are closing because studios don't want to spend the money to shoot on film. Yes there are a few exceptions but those few can't keep these labs open themselves, unless they shoot a movie every year
i prefer a bolex over the most expensive arri out there. am i crazy, maybe slightly but nothing beats the feeling
@9:11 lol
+Ben Ericson I get that he's talking about shooting with film cameras and they're showing a picture of a digital camera.
+Ben Ericson it's almost like the editor was making a joke by inserting the Nikon DF, which was made to look like a film camera. in fact, I bet the guy who cut this is going to check the comments from time to time hoping someone made mention of his joke.
What did I learn? Shooting film is different from shooting digital. Now what do you want to do?
A lot more nuanced than Tarantino and his "death of cinema".
I'm with Roger Deakins, it's more how you shoot and light it, than the format.
I think that the _context_ of the question needs to be defined ...
Film vs. Digital - What do you want it to look like, Film or Digital. If that's what you're asking then a modern Super 8mm (like Kodak's) is going to beat a lot (but not all) Digital Camcorders.
For things that are _less_ _expensive_ on Film than on Digital, like extreme Dynamic Range or huge Color Gamut or extreme width Anamorphic Widescreen - then Film beats Digital if you need all the aforementioned attributes, or one of them at low cost.
Here's a BTS about Ultra Panavision Film Format (65mm projected onto 70mm): czcams.com/video/SGg2N32Z-co/video.html .
But *if* _all_ you want is to "replace" Film a 65mm Digital Sensor is extremely close and better in many ways. The largest Studios (that are able to pry their people away from Film) are doing just that. It's also faster to Post when there's no intermediate Film Scan Conversion for CGI , Move Matching, 3D recompositition, etc.
The context of the question or the goal to be accomplished needs to be defined before the question can be answered. Digital *will* *_win_*, in the Future.
One of my favourite British gangster films in the last 10 years is Rise of the Footsoldier and that movie uses mostly digital but flashbacks in Super 8mm,16mm and 35mm,some of the scenes are extremely flat but i only noticed after first few viewing because i was into the story not what fucking camera he was using,i really would not care if somebody decided to make a movie on their smartphone as long as the story,acting,are good
That nikon was a digital camera
I am cool Masters friend and I subscribe your channel
Film "Glorifies" its subject matter.
Why are most of the people here cinematographers? They are not the filmmaker. They are a schism evolved from the studio system. The Elephant in the room is the fact that the film is a physical product. A piece of real estate. A moment in time captured onto a physical object. Real Estate has real value and the studios are keeping them locked in vaults. The Studios are the filmmakers in Hollywood rather than individual artists. Directors and Cinematographers are only assembly line clerks. The idea of Filmmaker Artist is returning tho as the studios are losing hold of the medium. Cinematographers and Directors care little for the Intellectual property of the Real Estate nor the value of the prints into the future. The debate here is missing the key component. Physical Real Estate.
Film looks better. Whats the debate?
what is wrong with people!? pls explain me what the difference about film vs digital footage? dont just tell there a differene, dont talk about love or tradition or the story!!! please just explain what is the fucking difference
quiet
Don't ask technically-minded cinematographers on the internet filmmaking advice. The vast majority of them have no clue about story and it's importance in filmmaking. They are so obsessed with numbers and stops they've forgotten their job, when it comes to filmmaking.
Yup, like this is true for all the nerds i see on yt when it comes to digital cameras
Why wasnt Quentin Tarantino here 😂
SO SAD
Three dislikes from me, Tarantino and Nolan
"let's add annoying background music for those people with no attention spans and can't sit still, but let's also make it soft enough to only interfere with the spoken words and not actually contribute much in way of background music! more percussion more percussion!"
film is beautiful.digital ;direct to dvd quality.LAWRENCE OF ARABIA,INTERSTELLAR ,ZULU.no digital camera can replicate that
Film looks better than digital because it's capturing colors in a subtractive model Cmyk i.e the more saturated colors are deeper and appear richer than the digital counterpart which uses additive color model of RGB i.e saturated colors are brighter and garish. Good for emulating a light source like a street lamp or the sun but terrible for everything else that matters like people and locations.
I've only heard downsides about using film and if all that matters is the story then why would you even consider film?
As a viewer I never enjoyed the film projector in my local cinema theatre.
I started enjoying movies only on the digital.
Thank goodness the film is dying. It's such a dumpster fire.
Most modern digital movies are never referred to as classic films. All the so called memorable classic film were shot on film. It was about the story and the process. The process now is all about convenience and cost from pinhead motion picture companies.
Unfortunately film is dead . Just filmmakers trying to survive .
At the end of the day, film looks better but digital is cheaper.
digital=trash film=great
simple as.