Film vs Digital - The Unresolvable Comparison
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 04. 2023
- This is my attempt to present a visual of the two mediums (film and digital) using some of the films, I personally believe, have been shot with great care and a level of craft that very few have mastered. The question I ask to the viewer is "How much does the medium contribute to the craft of the story being told?" I personally think that the medium does contribute to the story. I don't think someone could say it doesn't matter. To me, film looks different from digital. But I also find it very difficult to determine whether film is absolutely better than digital or vice versa. Each is beautiful in their own environment and uniquely different.
I can certainly see reasons for shooting on film when telling some stories and shooting on digital to tell others. Thankfully, we live in a time where we have a choice (albeit, I acknowledge that film does cost much more at this point in time for most of us...perhaps that will change as the years go by.)
Tell me what you learn from watching these different clips about the medium of film versus the medium of digital. Is it truly all about what's "in front on the frame" and the medium doesn't matter? Or does the medium absolutely matter, similar to the view of Quentin Tarantino. Or does the answer lie in the middle somewhere...? - Věda a technologie
It’s kind of miraculous that they landed on a format that is technically and emotionally so fantastic, so evocative, so early in the history of all of this
I agree. It couldn’t have been done any other way but it also happened to be the most “natural” format. The medium that many believe is closest to the way our eyes “see” the world.
@@cinefitinc I've actually heard it described as how our minds eye sees the world, the imagination or memory, which I find to be a good way to think about it
@@silas1414 I like that. That’s a better description.
It wasn't an accident. People were actually more intelligent back then, we just stand on their shoulders.
I don't think 'landed on' is the right term. It took a lot of work and precision to get the chemical emulsion of film just right to be as crisp as it is.
One thing that's usually glossed over in the debate is that, regardless of whether the movie was shot on digital or film, you're likely watching it digitally, either streaming or even with most cinema projectors. Even the chemical composition of film is eventually digitized at some point in the process.
...and vice versa. It's usually not a debate point because the digital streaming process has little to no impact on how the final product looks in terms of everything that gives film its edge. Yes, compression will cause blocking in the night shots and of course; if smooth motion is enabled on your parent's LED; you're screwed.
Like the person above me stated, yes digital projection is the norm now, but that isn't too relevant to the conversation because the image is all about what is being captured on-set. A camera is the data funneling tool while the lens is the eye in which the information is being funneled into. And what is being captured on film vs digital in real life has huge implications in terms of color information, the highlight/shadow latitude, and the overall texture of the image. Even when a film is scanned digitally, information captured on film will be interpreted differently.
Digital projection doesn't change the way the film captured the light. In my experience high quality film scans definitely look different in both tone and colour.
This is a dumb argument and very inaccurate. Digitizing a piece of analog media doesn’t somehow erase the characteristics of the medium in which it was created. A digital scan of a handwritten letter doesn’t magically turn it into a Microsoft Word document. Same goes for film. A digital scan of a movie shot on film is merely a digital representation of the images that were PHYSICALLY shot on film and it will always retain the characteristics of the original and that’s just inescapable. And what the hell do you mean the chemical composition of the film is digitized? Do you mean color correction? Because color correction and other post production techniques existed before digital you know. Movies you see on the big screen have NEVER been just the raw footage they originally shot. 🙄
The only and unique reason film is digitized has to do with money, not for artistic reasons. It costs much less for distributors to send digital copies and much less pricey for theaters to use digital projectors. If the price of making and projecting films would be competitive, I am sure old-school projections would have not dissepeared.
It comes down to digital being able to preserve a film (or digital equivalent) in a lossless format. This is from someone who's watched a lot of old films that were slowly disintegrating over time and now you can watch them fully restored with vibrant colours and no scratches/dust
Agreed. That is an invaluable benefit of digital.
This gets tricky; the ability to scan negatives and present them digitally can misrepresent the intention of the creator. Films shot on film should be preserved...on film. Keep the medium in its medium. Restoration can be done with a scalpel or a hammer.
@@craigrryan86 - No. A copy of a copy of a copy ... of anything analogue, decreases the quality. Multiple copies is what would occur over the decades and centuries.
Film is already nearly extinct, and will SURELY be much closer to absolute extinction much sooner than we might believe. Kodak is very nearly history, and Fujifilm, with regard to their film products, is not too far behind. And I don't even know of any other current film products, but maybe Illford? Does Illford still exist? What about Agfa?
A digital restoration of film can be done without any major alterations.
An example of the worst of what I object to is turning a black and white film into a color film. Can you imagine the first half of the Wizard of Oz also being in COLOR? Not me -
How about turning "I Love Lucy" into color? Nope. No way in hell.
To be clear, I'm speaking about the preservation of motion picture film. I think the concepts remain consistent with still photography, but that's a whole other discussion. My point is simply that the preservation of motion picture films should not only preserve the films themselves, but also the intent of the photography. Once a film negative is scanned at a high resolution, there is much more detail and latitude available that would never be seen on a photochemical theatrical release print. This is utilized with modern 4k HDR releases, and while they are technically and visually impressive, it is actually a revisionist form of preservation. For some films, this might be a great thing and reveal detail that improves the experience of the film; but this is not always the case. Filmmakers often relied on the degradation process that occurs with optical printing. Think of shots with stunt doubles, prosthetics, low-budget sets, costumes, makeup, and miniature work. In a lot of cases, the magic of these films is lost with new digital releases because they do not resemble what the print would have looked like, and the illusion of cinema breaks down. All too often I hear complaints of older movies looking terrible on modern TVs, and I agree.
Of course films can be preserved digitally while still resembling what the photochemical print looked like, but it seems to me that striking new prints for preservation would be a simpler way to get there. Digital preservation is also much more expensive over the long run; servers and drives need to be replaced and require constant attention. It's simply a lot of data, where as a film print is roughly 6 reels of film for a feature length movie. I think there's an argument for having both, but when limited to one, my vote is for film to be preserved/stored in its original medium.
@@craigrryan86 Sure but just to add a bit more complexity... you mention a film print being 6 reels of film for a feature. That's just... one person's copy. That digital preservation that costs "servers and drives" is dirt cheap these days, and you can immediately send it around the world for more copies digitally on any cloud storage.
A 2 TB SSD used to cost $400. Now it costs $100. The cost of digital will continue to decrease as the limits expand. The cost of film will only keep increasing as it becomes more rare.
Both mediums bring out different feelings. Let's normalise the fact that one medium isn't necessarily better than the other.
Totally agree. I hope that came across in my video. The two mediums are just very “different”. But both, in my opinion, are
beautiful.
I think the problem is the lack of awareness about what each brings to the table, along with a sort of "making sausage" attitude towards cinematography and editing in digital. Digital is much more affordable and flexible in post. This is why I think colorists have gotten _extremely_ lazy as of late. Either too many garish, oversaturated colors, or they compress it down and flatten it all out so that it's easier to match and they can send it quicker. I also think that cinematographers have leaned too heavily on the role of the colorist to make scenes work, rather than spend the time and energy setting it up so that it looks right in-camera.
The technology is great and it can be used well. I just hate that "we'll fix it in post" attitude that has permeated the industry. I do like that movie making is more accessible for studios or independent directors on a budget. That's nice to see. But I also see a lot of bad habits forming. There are a lot of cheap, animorphic lenses hitting the markets these days too. That's also kind of a mess, because they tend to make everything look like Star Trek lens-flare city. But hey, at least they're able to get more experience shooting in animorphic early in their careers.
End of the day, I just hope people learn to avoid the caveats of digital. The industry at large is kinda struggling with that.
Nice perfectly in the middle comment that says nothing of substance
@@UnifiedaxxS I know. But I told you right up front that the sweet spot is the boring answer and probably right in the middle. But a lot of us don’t like that answer because it is “boring” I suppose. But I don’t find it that way. I think it’s fascinating that it just won’t ever really settle in everyone’s mind.
Disagree
This isn’t a topic I was researching; the video was recommended by the algorithm, but surprisingly, I found it really interesting
So glad you found it interesting. Please let me know what you found interesting. Maybe some things you didn’t like. Would love your honest feedback. It helps me tremendously as I continue to make content.
@@cinefitinc I’m a big LOTRs fan so the thumbnail that compared Gandalf on film to digital caught my eye, as did the title of your video. It’s definitely made me think about how nostalgia plays a role in whether we look at film or digital as preferable, and you’re right that some scenes are so amazing because they were shot on film and others are amazing because they were shot digitally. I look back at films like Yentl that are so old but still so beautiful. The last scene is truly beautiful with Yentl sailing to America; the camera pans out and the sky is so beautiful. I’m not sure if it would be the same in digital. Would the feeling it arouses be the same? You’ve really got me thinking. Not many things make me really stop and think and ask myself questions about my perception and that of others. I play a lot of video games and whereas I love the nostalgia of pixel art and I always will, I love playing modern games in HDR. Games are stories that are often more amazing than anything Hollywood has to offer. There’s something special about games and even when they’re turned into big budget tv shows and films, there’s still something missing. The heart is often missing. I guess it can be the same with film vs digital. Some things need to be captured in the right format in order for them to be truly appreciated. My comparison to video games is a little off topic but your video really has me thinking about a lot of different things. I like your balanced take of film vs digital and that the conclusion is that perception and nostalgia can be the biggest driving forces in whether we like the way something looks. Years ago a friend watched Sucker Punch on BluRay at my house and she said she didn’t like the way it looked. It was very crisp and to her it made it look fake in a very distracting way. I wonder if she would think that now 10+ years later now that we’ve had more time to adjust to sharp digital images. I’m subscribed now so I’ll be sure to comment on your videos. I don’t have any real feedback for you that could help you improve. I just wanted to say I appreciate your work and the balanced info you presented, including the Tarantino quote.
@@AvoidantNomad , thank you for sharing your feedback. On gaming, I'm a child of the 80s so much of my nostalgia is found in what we had then. Many games had great stories with them then, but it has become even more impactful. I know that gaming has the same nostalgia and love that great films do. There is a real emotional impact in the storytelling aspect of gaming that I have noticed. I think we're at a point that gaming may, in some ways, be more impactful in storytelling than filmmaking. So I definitely hear you. It's not "off topic" at all. I'm glad this made you think. It's one of the reasons I titled the video "the unresolvable comparison". There really is no right or wrong. Or better or worse. It's better to ask the question "what do you think?" instead of telling people what I think. I love film and I love digital, but for very different reasons. If we lived in the days of film, very few of us would have had the opportunity to even tell stories like we do now. That is one reason I absolutely LOVE digital. It gives great storytellers a chance that they may never have had. To Tarantino's credit, he acknowledged that too. Although, I'm certain he will never touch a digital camera in his life. However, he's one of very few filmmakers that is blessed with that option. Thanks again for your comments!
One of those rare times when I am suprised by the subscriber count.
Have taken a week long break from youtube and it is very refreshing to go back and watch a thoughtful, thought proving and calm video instead of the zero-attentionspan hectic garbage that litters youtube these days.
My point being: well done sir! Enjoyed the video!
Could not agree more, honestly.
I think it depends on the cinematographer using the particular medium and the situation. Some movies that use digital absolutely look it and can look cheap. But in some situations, as in Deakins and Blade Runner 2049, it looks beautiful because the cinematographer using it has really mastered it AND has access to higher-end equipment (that too is a factor). The same goes with film.
Totally agree that digital can look very different across different DPs. I was recently watching Greig Fraser’s “The Batman” which was shot digitally but was extremely gritty and dark. He used a old set of Cooke Xtal lenses that gave it a very comic-book effect. And, of course, he is very good at lighting. But I’ve also seen other digital movies that just look “cheap” as many have said. I don’t hate digital. It’s just looks different than film. And, as you say, much of its beauty depends upon the DP’s level of care and artistry.
To me, it's not just about the look of film vs digital, it's mostly about the amount of focus and dedication required by the whole crew to shot a movie on film vs digital. When you're dealing with film rolls that are very expensive you can't afford to screw up that much, whilst with digital you have much more room for miatakes as you have potentially infinite storage to shoot scene
“Much more room for mistakes” yeah but to shoot less appealing looking scenes. Just my opinion. I don’t like digital. My eyes feel like I’m not focusing on the screen. As good as the story is, my focus feels off. Film is complete to me.
Absolutely love this style of commentary and video and your voice suits the style very well. Really nicely done.
From a photographer point of view. There is no replacing film. I’ve tried all the best digital cameras. Don’t care for them. Hasselblad x1dii, Fuji gfx system. Sold them. I landed on an old Nikon d700 for digital and my main film camera is a Pentax 67ii. I don’t care what anyone says you can’t manipulate a digital file to look like film. It’s not the same. I am consistently blown away at the scans I get back from the lab of my film work. I can’t say the same for my digital files. However I do still enjoy shooting digital as well. But the love for film is real!
I remember an interesting reddit discussion (which unfortunately i doubt i could find again) in which, it was explained that digital looks more like how you see the world with your eyes and film like how you view your dreams and memories, which actually makes film more evocative despite not being as realistic.
The two last films that I worked on were both shot on 35mm Panavision. My friend Sean, just did a feature that was shot on Super 16 and looks amazing!
On this argument, one of my professors said: "the format doesn't mean anything. Lens choice is what matters in visual storytelling".
I can’t argue with that point. It’s a good one. While I still see a difference between the first Bladerunner and the BR2049 and attribute a part of it to the medium, I think many could rightfully argue that Deakin’s choice of lens was incredibly more pristine and clean than what Cronenweth used on the original BR. And it was the lens that mostly contributed to the difference in the look between the films. It’s hard to argue that point.
@@cinefitinc "While I still see a difference between the first Bladerunner and the BR2049"
lol Those films are literally 35 years apart. One film is WAY older than the other, so of course you can tell the difference. 🤪
@@cinefitinc or even lighting
For some reason, I didn't like how new movies feel, and I wasn't sure exactly why until I understood the difference between film and digital. It really makes a difference for me, mostly how I used to see movies when I was younger. I think digital ones are closer to reality and feel like I am watching a documentary rather than a fictional story.
I think Deakins said it best (I'm paraphrasing here): “I like film. I like digital. I think it's good that both exist. I prefer digital nowadays, though.” That's how I feel about this “war.” And I like his films that he shot digitally. They look gorgeous. I just wish he didn't shoot on spherical lenses all the time. I would love to see a Deakins film shot digitally with anamorphic lenses.
Don't overanalyze it. What are cinematographers choosing to shoot movies with today? If digital had the best image then they all would choose it. But they're not. Film is still being used and 70mm IMAX is rising in popularity.
Was hoping someone else felt this way. way too analytical for something that’s pretty obvious. Film is king
As a film maker I think it always comes down to one thing, and that is 'story'. Instead of having the defining answer "one is better than the other" it is more interesting choosing the option that will elivate the story. As you said, film is not as sharp, and have a smoother and warmer shape that gives a magic glow, while digital is sharp, crisp and cool, maybe good at showing reality. :)
Well said! I was very close to concluding this video with that very commentary. None of it matters if you don’t have a great story. Still, I can not at the same time say that the medium you record on is irrelevant because it does, at least to me, convey a ‘feeling’ and the two (film and digital) do not ‘feel’ the same.
@@cinefitinc Totally agree! :)
Movies aren't just about story. I've always felt it's a really lazy cheap answer when people say words to the effective "script is king". Movies can be amazing without having excellent writing, there's so much else going on it would be ridiculous to write it all off or even just belittle it in favour of a cheap one word answer.
I know you're saying that the choice between digital and film should be relevant to what suits the story best, and sure, but it's also important (I would argue more important) to suit the tone and style etc. as opposed to just a story which can fit various styles and frames anyway.
I wonder if there also could be more movies like Everything, Everywhere All at Once, in which there are segments shot on film and segments shot digitally, depending on the feeling they want to evoke for that particular sequence. It is a given that not all movies can do that as easily for not having the multiverse justificative, but still worth trying
Yeah, but what about before they had a choice? All films were on film, and they didn't look bad for it.
Personally, I think I’ve always favored digital because in the back of my mind I know that it’s basically a computer “trying” to approximate what it’s capturing as opposed to the more organic and scientific processing of film. But despite all of that I will never dispute the fact that digital can be beautiful at times. So regarding the point u made about “what if digital existed before science?”, I’d still probably favor film if I knew digital was merely an approximation.
I feel like there is a gap in your presentation. Which is, a film's method of exhibition. There is a Swiss university study where they shot identical scenes with digital and celluloid. They found that any discernible difference is to be found in projection. There is a slight flicker with mechanical projectors which gives film its quality.
On a base technical level, sure, silver halide crystals are different media to digital sensors, but that is immaterial, when there has not been a purely analogue workflow for nearly 20 years now. Productions shot on film still scan negatives for color grading intended for exhibition via DCP. The films you show in this video like 2001 and Raiders of the Lost Ark, were remastered from scans, with pixels stored with a codec and shown on televisions and computer screens. That's digital!
Cinephiles (like myself for a while :) often get into pixel-peeping nonsense comparing the media itself, searching for all these fundamental differences, as if one gazes into a microscope for long enough, one can find a film's soul. However, it's false to say a digital video cannot exactly replicate film. Any aspect of film can be replicated with video, if one wants to achieve a film-like look, from the softness, to the colour space, to even the grain. While it was once correct to say video had less dynamic range than celluloid film, this is no longer the case. Kodak 5207 has 13 stops of range, while the Arri 35 has at least 15.
The other aspect often missing from evaluating film vs digital isn't the equipment as such, but the workflow. When shooting with celluloid, productions have fewer opportunities to carry out take after take compared with digital. This can affect both acting performance and shot decisions. Shots become more deliberate with film. Funders and studios also generally require Daily Progress Reports to keep track of production footage, and something Tarantino and Nolan aren't saying out loud, is that shooting on film is a way of evading this, since film labs don't deliver dailies like they used to.
In 2023, this debate is a dead horse, but is flogged not only by nostalgics, but certain cinematographers creating 'boutique solutions' to set themselves apart from others nipping at their heels. And so, more than anything else celluloid has become a 'prestige' medium for filmmakers to make a statement about their professional standing and artistic independence. Any comparison though, most certainly is not unresolvable.
BTW: 24fps came about for economic reasons, as the slowest the film could run past the gate without the image getting choppy.
Wow. Excellent comment! Agree with what you said about projection. I did deliberately leave that out. All of these films which were captured on celluloid were digitally scanned and most assuredly color corrected. I’ll look up the Swiss study to learn more. Still, for me, at home on a 4K TV, on an iPad and on my iMac, which is actually where I spend most of my time looking at these qualities, I can see a difference. But the ARRI Alexa is getting very close. I own one (for rental purposes) and love it! My video is actually shot on the SXT with Cooke lenses. I LOVE the image. And I could never afford to shoot film even if I wanted to.
Also, I’ve heard others make the same point about the method of production using celluloid vs digital. Much more precise. Much more care in preparation. More focus from the entire crew and actors when you hear that film rolling.
Thanks for your insights. All excellent points.
you just described what I always loved about older movies... the character... the look... digital movies are great! no question!.. but they lack that specific kind of character I grew up with and love so much! ... it just does not look perfect.. and that is exactly what makes it perfect to me.. if that makes any sense :D
Makes perfect sense. I grew up on film. Digital looks different to me. Very sharp. Very clean. Can I still get lost in a digital film. You bet. But I notice the difference.
This is the most poetic and philosophic and artistic video i have seen on CZcams in years. As a content creator, and poet, and as a poetry teacher, i thank you. You have influenced me in my own way to think videos.
Thank you very much for that comment. I am very glad to read that you were positively influenced by my video. I’ve only done a few as you can probably see because I won’t do one unless I feel strongly that what I have to say would be important for others to hear and perhaps be inspired to share their thoughts more. Again, thank you very much for your comment. I really do appreciate that you said that.
Don't forget all medium and large-budget films shot either on film or digital are often heavily reworked in compositing colour grading and VFX. Often, not much is left from the original plate.
I'm a few months late commenting on this wonderful analysis of film vs. digital, however there are other factors at play that most people aren't discussing with this topic that isn't based on the quality of either medium, but the politics and agendas deep within it. I apologize for the length of my post, but it is what it is.
1. George Lucas - There's no doubt how much of an impact Lucas has made on the film industry, especially on technological side of things. ILM, Skywalker Sound, THX and Pixar. Lucas was always one of the biggest champions for pushing technology forward and moving away from shooting on celluloid and over to digital. He intended to shoot Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace digitally, but the camera systems still weren't quite able to mimic the quality of film. It wasn't until Episode II that he was able to utilize a Sony Camera system that allowed him to shoot digitally. Filmmakers like George, David Fincher and Francis Ford Coppola have embraced digital, others like many of the filmmakers mentioned in this videos and others still prefer to shoot film. While this isn't exactly a specific reasoning for my overall points I'll get to, I think it was worth mentioning.
2. The Independent Filmmaker - While this point is going to be based solely on my on personal experiences and run-ins with indie filmmakers throughout the late 1990's and early 2000's, I think it's worth mentioning. I met many indie filmmakers who were championing for the death of film, who viewed it not only as an archaic way to make movies, but an oppressive and elitist technology that didn't allow true independents like themselves to be able to make movies without having enormous budgets with the costs of film cameras, film and developing. They felt Hollywood controlled the technology and equipment, not allowing for the little guy to break in, and therefore the sooner the death of film came about and cheaper digital tech became available, it would be the death saber to "the industry" that controlled everything. Of course filmmakers like Kevin Smith, Robert Rodriquez, Steven Soderbergh, Edward Burns and so many others who were nobodies and shooting on film at the time was a moot point to them. I still see some of this attitude towards the use of celluloid today, especially from people who've never shot with it before. Not only do they cite the costs associated with it, but look at it as some sort of old man's oppressive way of making movies and needs to die and go away forever.
3. The Tech Companies - When companies like RED really starting taking off, they started making deals with studios and production companies in trying to get them to convert from film to their products. This shouldn't be a surprise as this is simply how business is done in every industry. However because the film industry is as small as it is, it did create a heavy hit to companies like Panavision, ARRI, Kodak and Fuji. Fuji eventually got out of the motion picture film business altogether, and Panavision and ARRI had to start focusing on building digital cameras. A lot of backroom deals between the studios and these new digital camera companies definitely played their part in where we are today.
4. Preservation - For all the pro digital and tech bros who want to see film go away entirely, it simply can't for preservation sake. While most movies and television shows are now shot digitally, Kodak still manufactures a lot of celluloid to the studios to restore and preserve the thousands of movies shot for over one hundred years. I recommend doing a CZcams search for "Jaws | Restoring the Film | Blu-ray Bonus Feature Clip" that talks about how for archival purposes that a new negative is struck. This goes for all the studios, boutique physical media labels and archival houses like the National Film Registry.
5. New Filmmakers Should Learn to Shoot on Film - There is something very different shooting a movie on film vs. digital, regardless if your purpose is the same thing, which is to capture a moving image. There's a very difference balance and environment on a set when shooting film, dare I say one needs to be more disciplined and decisive. There's a fantastic 12 minute video here on CZcams called "Making a 35mm short film | Lab & scanning process" where some young filmmakers have the opportunity to shoot film with Panavision cameras, and they realize themselves that it's exactly that. Shooting film requires a lot more preparation made beforehand due to the heft and weight of the equipment, the cost of the film and having a limited amount of takes because of it. This is just my personal opinion, but it's one I strongly hold.
6. Being Told "You Can't" - This comes back to my second point about how some indie filmmakers wanting to see the death of celluloid because they felt it was an elitist way of making movies meant only for the rich and powerful, which is something I've never believed. Now that digital has become the dominant tool, the rest of us are supposed to fall inline and move to this technology. I'm someone who prefers to shoot on film, but I'm constantly told by my friends, filmmakers and the industry as a whole that I need to "get with it" and shoot digitally. It's a dying technology that needs to go away, and I have to embrace what is going to naturally be the only way to make movies in the future. When I say people like Spielberg, Tarantino, Nolan, Paul Thomas Anderson are pro-film, they say "well you're not Spielberg or Tarantino, and it's just a 'successful' auteur's medium now," all I think of is could you imagine telling a painter they can no longer use a canvas and paint and must use a tablet now? This goes back to my first point about George Lucas who always outlines and writes his scripts with pencils and lined yellow sheets of paper. Would anyone dare tell George Lucas that he can no longer write his screenplays that way, and he must use a computer and Final Draft, yet he does that to his friend Spielberg, always mocking him about still shooting on film. The whole thing is hypocritical, but also is everything the anti-film indie filmmakers were supposedly fighting against they themselves have become. As an artist, don't I have a say and choice with the tools I prefer to work with? Isn't that part of being an artist, choosing the right tools we're most comfortable with that let's us unleash our creativity the best way we know how? This is probably the thing that drives me the most crazy, how I'm constantly being told either "I can't" or "I shouldn't" because it's an old fashioned and out of date way to make my art. I also find it interesting that so many young filmmakers look up to people like Spielberg, Nolan, Tarantino and Paul Thomas Anderson, all who advocate for film, yet none of these young filmmakers seem to take their advice.
That's my two cents on the matter.
Interesting that the first digital example you showed was from Skyfall. I remember seeing that movie in theaters and genuinely not being able to tell that it was shot digitally. I mean, Roger Deakins could shoot a movie with a potato and make it look good but the point is I believe it does matter less nowadays what a movie is shot on. That being said, I grew up with 90's cinema and film just feels right to me for the movie going experience. A Quiet Place was such a breath of fresh air to me after seeing so many sterile looking digital movies. A lot of that is obviously story, acting, locations, lighting, sound design... but being shot on film is just like... "yeah... this is how it should look." I don't know, for me, I just get lost in the experience and that's something truly special about film.
Love that comment George. I think it’s fascinating though that you can pick up on that difference in mediums right away. The truth is that some people just can’t. They couldn’t tell you if it was film or digital. And probably because they don’t really care. Obviously there is much more to the feel of a movie than just the medium it’s shot on. That I think we all understand. But for a few of us, in many ways maybe unexplained, film just feels right.
Skyfall is the first and only bond movie there is shot digital. Spectre is shot on film and no time to die is also on film.
It's funny you say that because I just rewatched Skyfall and I could instantly tell that it was shot digitally.
@@Skrenja I have only seen the movie once in theaters and that was one thought that I had, just assumed it was film because its such an incredible looking movie. What was it that made you realize it was digital right away?
Only one cinema in my city is showing Oppenheimer on film. Luckily they have a [70mm] projector and so that’s how it’s being shown. The image flickers and the imperfections in the film are sometimes visible, but it was glorious, I haven’t had a cinematic experience so natural, believable, and compelling in years. I’m going again and taking some friends this weekend just to share and relive the film experience.
The saddest thing to me is that somewhere in my short lifetime we have gone from film is all there is to film as a boutique rarity, all but a handful of cinemas in a handful of places now have the equipment and expertise to even show film.
I do love digital but the loss of film as a mainstream medium for presentation feels like a loss for society, and so for that reason I go on as an advocate for film.
I think the clamouring to see Oppenheimer on film shows there is a demand in society for an authentic film experience so I hope this movie contributes to preserving the art of making and showing movies using film.
One thing... Film absolutely crushes the blacks. That's one big difference between digital and film, film deals well with overexposure, you can recover details from the highlights even if they're 5-6 steps overexposed, but underexposed areas, not really. If you try to recover shadows on film, you get this really noisy dark grey area. With digital, it's the other way around, you can easily recover details in the shadows, but if you clip the highlights, it's gone for good. Hence why digital photographers use ETTR (expose to the right, basically expose for the highlights) whereas film photographers know to expose for the shadows.
Obviously, talented cinematographers or photographers will usually be able to use the correct settings when shooting and in post to produce similar results with both.
Subbed, your presentation style is very cosy yet engaging whilst delivering some great thoughts.
I hope your channel blows up!
I think the different with film is that the chemical process adds a certain amount of variance or imperfections that don't happen the same way with digital cameras. I see the same thing happen with traditional vs digital paintings. There's something about the physical painting process that makes the final image uniquely beautiful because of the unexpected ways the paint will behave. It's hard to get digital cameras to do that. Usually, people add in "mistakes" to simulate it, but it's not the same. The other thing is that digital cameras seems to break the illusion of "cinema." Their clarity is awesome. It can make it feel like you're really there, but you sacrfice the hyperreality of film. You can see that it's just a set, just make-up, just people wandering around. That sense of peering through a window into another world is lost to a certain degree.
We get this with music as well. Vinyl adds a character to music that isn't present on digital files. I prefer digital music for the clarity, but it's undeniable that there's something about music coming from vinyl that makes it more expressive, engaging, and "real," even though the digital file is a perfect copy of the performance.
I agree regarding film, but disagree about vinyl. The human ear is not able to discern the difference between an analog recording on vinyl and a digital file, as proven in blind testings. But that is not to say that audiophiles do not have a point though; there is often a difference in the music itself.
Vinyl records have a limited amount of information that can be stored on them, which means that the producers of these records need to be not only selective, but downright artistic in their mixing. When pushing one element of the music, they have to subtract another. It requires skill, dedication, patience and a true ear for music. Unlike digital mixes, where you push everything to 11 and publish with the click of a button. Sure, it can sound impressive, but there is no delicacy and finesse in the production.
I loved the way you speak and the fact that you asked more questions than answers, because this is really one of the most subjective matters ever
I definitely like asking more questions to get myself to “dig deeper”. After making this video, I found that there was something even more fundamental of a question than the one I was asking, but I didn’t learn that until after I made the video and read a lot of the comments. The more fundamental question is the difference between analog and digital and which one if any is better?
The best part about CZcams really is your comments. What I learn from the community. You know one fascinating fact I learned, at least from all those that commented? It’s that some of us believe that it remains unanswerable. Others do not. They believe the question was resolved a while ago. Isn’t that fascinating. I don’t believe that but many do. Others, which I believe includes you and me, do not believe it’s been resolved and are fascinated by that. There truly is something deeper here about digital technology vs analog. I want to get to the bottom of it. ☝🏻
Love this commentary and your examples are beautiful!😊
I read somewhere, that the reason that films were 24fps was because after moving away from silent movies in 16fps, 24fps was the best for sound comprehension while using the least possible film. I assume because it was to keep the costs of printing film down.
Your video was a great thought-proving watch!
24 fps was about cost. It was the fewest frames possible to not notice that it's in fact a sequence of still images, and the rest is history.
Film was expensive, and when you're a studio and to it at scale, it adds up.
I think the reason gandalf looks different is because of age but also there is a weird cloudy effect that plagues the hobbit trilogy
OMG Thank you so much for these words , I was searching exactly for this
and I thought this thoughts only in my mind
do more videos , this platform needs people like you
Thanks so much! I’m glad I’m not alone in my thinking. Stay with me!
It's not just about nostalgia. A movie is an illusion and we often adopt practices that best sell that illusion. 24 fps for example is much better for making a fight or chase feel more real and intense because it can make motion feel faster than it actually was in camera. HFR completely wipes the thrill away. We can hide a lot of sleight of hand with motion blur. Cinema is about story and emotion and often the thing that's "superior" on paper in terms of numbers isn't the best way to tell stories that connect with the audience.
I must also add that our records of old film as digital scans are a far cry from the real thing. The average person has the idea that old film was blurry because of the records we have today but it was the degradation over time and digital scans not being too good at the time. 35mm film is actually really sharp and 70mm film really changes the discussion around sharpness. It's every bit as sharp if not sharper than the best digital cameras yet not harsh and has incredible dynamic range. An example of a modern high quality scan of film is The Hateful Eight, and you can see how sharp and detailed that film is. This isn't to say that digital is inferior as it has plenty of advantages but the idea that film or old tech was not sharp is a bit of a misconception.
Completely agree! I’ve never liked anything other than 24fps. That may be the “nostalgia” in me that’s talking but I notice it even when people’s flat-panel tvs are set up with a “smoothing” adjustment. It looks awful. Like the old soap operas of the 80s.
@@lamenamethefirst I’ve got to watch the Hateful Eight. I’ve been meaning to. You’ve convinced me!
From my eyes, older movies look more real despite the imperfections, though I actually like the grain and pixels here and there. I don't find modern films all that visually pleasing or intimate. They look like video games. And I miss practical effects. I was watching Jean Claude Van Damme's Cyborg a little while ago; you can tell the makers of the film did the best they could with what little they had. It gives a creative and magical vibe.
I think both film and digital are superb and if used correctly and in the right circumstances will produce outstanding results. I admire both formats.
I came upon this video after searching for “film vs digital”, mostly in terms of photography but I gladly stayed for the movie discussion as I love to hear about that too. I really enjoyed it! It was very interesting and your voice is very soothing. :) Subscribing in hopes to see you post again one day.
What a great video! You're so underrated. The 'what if digi was invented before film' reminded me of the early 2000s crappy digital aesthetic that people like. And as you said nostalgia playing a big role. So i agree that's it's not always about what's technically better but more what vibe you like / what serves the story. Cheers!
I see a comparison with the media that painters use, such as oils, watercolours or acrylics. Is one absolutely better than the other? Or is it more the case that different materials serve different aesthetic needs.
@@jamestulk4169 Yeah exactly
I have been thinking about this a lot. You have filled in a few gaps in my understanding of the conflict. Recently, I watch an old classic, A Christmas Story, with a couple of young people who had never seen it. As soon as the movie began I had a sinking feeling. I could tell that something I cherished about the film was gone. Soon the two young people lost interest and left the room. I realized that the movie had been digitized. I could not finish the movie. My goal is to be a film maker, but this issue, film or digital, is deeply concerning to me. Thanks so much for your post.
I've seen biased videos and discussions on Film vs Digital. This feels like a true observation like looking at the pros and cons of digital vs Film debate. I love it and keep up the great work
Im born in the late 90's and have always wondered why these days films just look so different, its only been a few years ago that I understand that the magic to me lies more in film. To me whenever something is shot on film its like you are looking at something from a different realm then what you could do on your own with a camera, especially these days with everybody having a great camera inside their pockets. It feels like something tangable in a world thats become so digitalized.
Please make more videos. Your passion comes through. You’re a very good speaker.
A great commentary. And your conclusion is spot on. Neither is better than the other. They just both deliver the filmmaker’s vision
The other thing to look at is presentation mediums. Kodak's 2393 print stock achieves a contrast ratio of 250,000:1. It doesnt matter what 35mm projector thats coming out of, it could be a Simplex assembled from spares or it could be a $300,000 rebuilt DP70, or a Kinoton FP75E (yes there will be image steadiness differences between them, thats a given). Your contrast ratio will be the same, with the right lenses, it will be just as sharp. Not the same for digital. Modern laser projectors (Barco SP4k, Dolby Vision, etc) are only just now approaching that contrast ratio with laser, but that comes with the downside of fringing and speckle. And you need special screens for them. And those projectors cost obscene amounts of money. Don't want to spend that money? Want a "reasonable" $60,000 projector? Yeah enjoy a mind-blowing 2,000:1 contrast ratio. Film is fundamentally the best method of projecting a movie onto a large screen, no matter how you shoot it. The ONLY people who lose when movies are distributed on film are studios, as it costs them more upfront to distribute on film than it does on digital. Who eats that shifted cost? Theater owners. The pandemic didn't kill theaters, digital did.
I feel Film vs Digital is kind of a non-issue now. Yes the purists are still pushing but it's honestly a bit limiting in some ways. Dehancer can pretty much get filmic right with any digital source so why box yourself in? What do we even mean when we say filmic? Sometimes we mean highlight rolloff. Sometimes we mean lighting. Sometimes we mean sharpness or lack of it. Sometimes we mean gritty and grainy. It's so many things not just nuanced or random RGB in the colors and halation - it's really about the look and feel, which we can manipulate like crazy now.
Its not the same. Film is not a digital medium. Why "box" yourself in? I defer to Mr. Welles; "the enemy of art is the absence of limitation".
But thats fake
The answer is not as fun as the discussion. Thank you for your research and effort into this. I think you hit a point where it’s difficult to really say. Both mediums have their advantages and disadvantages. I feel it comes down to tone and style. Some stories need a certain medium to fully illustrate them. The search for the next film that uses either is exciting to see what happens. I felt The Batman 2022 used digital in a very unique way and its cinematographer uses it not unlike a painter would use oils vs acrylic or vice versa.
Yes, you’re talking about Greig Fraser. He shot the recent Batman and Dune with Denis Villeneuve. Two professionals that I admire very much. The truth is…I don’t hate digital. I’m just pointing out that it looks different than film to me. Now if you read some of the comments below (and I encourage you to), some argue that the film vs digital argument is over. Digital can look indistinguishable from film, if you decide to process it with that filmic look in mind. There are some strong arguments made that assert such is the case. Look at the Steve Yedlin posts on CZcams about it. But, I’ve got to say, even as I watch this new Indiana Jones film come out, which was shot on an Alexa. It just does NOT look like film. Does it look bad. Not at all! But it doesn’t look like the original three shot on film. Again, I don’t hate digital. It’s just different in my opinion. It looks much cleaner and crisper than something shot on celluloid. Thanks for the comment!!
@@cinefitinc i agree as i notice the difference as easily as i noticed the change from vhs to dvd to blu ray. Film appears to transfer better where digital tends to fall flat if not properly adjusted
I have yet to see The Batman, but it reminds me that beyond this Film vs Digital debacle, this whole thing with the Volume that started with the Mandalorian has a very specific look that you can see on these projects - Not a bad look, necessarily, but I compare an episode of The Mandalorian with a recent Star Wars movie and the pop in the colors really stands out; It is not that "The Volume" feels flat, per se, but, like you said, it has this more painterly look rather than something with actual volume like, say, the metal Iron Man suit in the first film has (to compare with The Mandalorian's own metal armor)
I agree, the answer is not as fun as the discussion! Thanks!
I like your analysis. And I think the reason film will always be visually superior to digital is due to the reason you mentioned at the beginning: the nature of how it absorbs light and color. People call digital "clean" because of its sharpness, but in reality film is much cleaner. Film portrays the world exactly as it is; the colors are purer, the roll off between light and shadow is smoother, and the texture is more natural. If we were to shoot a movie on digital then add a grainy texture in post, it would not come close to film simply because the difference is not only in texture and resolution, but also the purity of the colors and light.
Thank you for making this video. It's such a nuanced perspective on this debate.
I really love that you posed the question about if film is just nostalgic because it came first and if that is the reason it is so favored. It’s something that has been bouncing around in my head too. I also need to start a channel so I don’t drive my family insane with my nerdy niche rants lmao keep it up
I’m glad I’m not the only one thinking about that. I suppose it’s all philosophical but it emphasizes a phenomenon that I see everywhere in the world. Nostalgia is a powerful thing. It’s built from what we experience and mixed with a lot of deep emotion. And as a human race, we don’t all share the same experiences.
@@cinefitinc Yes I love philosophical questions about art and technology. Nostalgia is definitely powerful. I can see how it plays out for those who seek the comfort of familiarity. It’s interesting when it crosses the threshold into “this is how it should look / this feels more correct”
Recently I heard some people really prefer the look of motion smoothing on their TVs, the “soap opera” effect while others prefer leaving the 24fps as is. It feels similar to this discussion in that they grew up used to having that setting on in their TVs.
I would argue, Three Strip Technicolor -- Yes it would make a big difference. Scenes involving fire and bright highlights still do better on film. At the end of the day it's down to the DOP.
Thoughtful and provoking. Thnx. This guy is to watch for.
It's a great question 'what if digital came first'. If digital was indeed first I'm not sure the actual advent of cinema or movies would have even happened. The whole reason for film was to showcase the technology of high resolution imaging. This is where our performers and artists come into play. With digital technology those artists of film are obsolete. This is why digital will never replace FILM as a visual narrative. Digital is true to life and it's how we view the world through near unlimited content. Film is inherently a delicate art form requiring great care.
GREAT perspective on this
i have had very similar thought experiments i banter around with my father
but this is the first time i hear of anyone else bring this exact topic up
LOVEd the video. many thanks for sharing with the rest of us.
Very glad you enjoyed it!
Film has that movement, but it also invites the brain and eyes' tendency to fill in the blanks in the visual information we are receiving from the real world. There is a sense of unrealism: surrealism, fantasy, and being in a dream. And like in a dream, there are elements we forget and want to re-experience. The idea of re-living some of our dreams is exciting to say the least. We have this same phenomena happening when we watch film. Unlike a digital image that is perfectly crisp, we have shifting grains that present a small amount of information loss for a fraction of a second. I think it is this phenomenon that triggers the brain's desire to go back and watch again to capture the rest of the information needed to preserve a single frame, except that is impossible because of the inherent film grain. This seems to be part of why we come back. Not only the warmth and texture, but the psychological mechanisms that engage when we view it.
Many filmographers constantly mourn for film and that look that they don't have on digital cameras... On the other hand, the average viewer first notices - why isn't this sharp?
In most cases, the most important thing is the story, not the photo and the beauty of the video, which are just a bonus.
Subscribing right now and looking forward to see your subscriber count skyrocket. Great video, mate.
great and well-edited video. Thanks!
To me the difference that can never be made up between film and digital is in the faces. When I think of film all the most lasting images are of the faces. I dont know what the technical words for it are but they just look better. They look more dynamic, more real, have better contrast. I think maybe it has to do with the black and white levels you mentioned but I just prefer the look of a good close up on film over digital any day of the week.
Great video. I particularly liked the measured tone of the comparison.
Until I see an actual comparison of two identical shots with the same lighting conditions I am not convinced. Feels like arguing "24 fps is objectively better" even though we only think that because we're USED to it, and only reason that trend started was to cut costs.
Things are changing over time. If you have a look at the originals of movies that were shot between 1945 and 1955 they are really different to the ones that were shot in the around 1980. The film stock changed and got sharper, the grain got smaller, the colors got better and better. The invention of sound in movies or Color film. Times are changing. So what? It our nostalgic feeling that makes us think, timeswere better when we were younger and that’s the case for every generation.
I fear you may be correct. Nostalgia is a powerful powerful force. All of this may be a play on our bias that “the way things used to be” are better than the way things are today.
To be honest, if I hadn't looked at the 'digital' mark at 8:12, I would've assumed that the Skyfall scene was shot on film and simply scanned to digital. It doesn't feel artifically _clean_ like a lot of digital movies do. Maybe it's the depth and focus? The blur? The lack of visible detail making it more mysterious? I dunno.
EDIT: Oh, it's cause Roger Deakins shot it. Guess that explains it.
Haha, right! It’s Deakins.
Such a well put together stream of thoughts! Well done Sir 😃! As far as the argumentation... as you said it, the truth is probably in the middle. And yes, what we grew up with, how conditioned we are and what brings all the memories and emotions back is what seems best to us now. Still, as both a digital and film photographer, there is this undeniable nice feeling I get when shooting with film. There is something about us being "analog" and physical beings that makes us relate better to film, to printed photos, to old records, to manual vehicles. Of all the current modern cars, full of electronics, fake exhaust sounds, gameboy interfaces and iPads, there are none that provoke ANY kind of nice feeling within me. Same with endless stream of music on streaming services, entertainment here on CZcams, with virtual productions, sound stages, LED screens, etc. There's so little magic left. We almost don't have to work for and wait for anything anymore. With film you do have to....
One way to look at this is the industry had 70 years to perfect their craft for Film. You saw large leaps even from the 80's to 90's. Digital Filmaking has only really hit its stride in the last 12-13 years or so. And we've come a LONG way already. I HATED digital filmmaking. Then Fincher changed my mind about it. The best I've seen to date is "The Batman". Because now they are finding ways to add character to the image, but they still retained all the benefits of digital. We're going to see more of this.
I can't believe people are still arguing about this. You can shoot digitally, do some color grading, ad vfxs, etc., then transfer to film and throw all the crap about aesthetics.
The main discussion is not how it was shot, the point here is how to preserve it, and so far, the best format is film.
Totally agree on preservation. Film is the answer.👍🏻
When you asked “is this more interesting because it was shot on film?” My answer was yes…
When you showed the one with Daniel Craig that was interesting because of the lighting.
Great lighting fx can compensate for some of the inherent vibe that film presents. That’s just me though. I like movies shot on film
Thank you for presentation of this topic, video editing pace is very comfortable to watch. In last period avoiding lot of CZcams content because of hectic and speedy way of producing.
Thank you! I was concerned my pace was going to be too slow for most viewers, but I’m finding that not to be the case. This pace is my natural style of speaking. I really can’t change it. 😉
Those gandalf shots were really eye-opening.
We often hear that film is more organic, grains, nostalgia and things like that, but...A much more important thing is that film shows only what is in front of camera, that's it. I am not refering here to imagination-fiction but to simple collection of light and images. There is no attempt to modify the reality that was in front of the lens. Digital cameras since the beginning has totally another goal, to show a fake transformed vision that is a movie construction (effects in camera and editing, play a lot with the coloring and many computerised modifications), changing what was the real atmosphere and images that the camera captured. Digitalization is a distorsion beast that everyone nowadays consider normal every time they click on a video or a TV show. Digital tries to impress viewers with sofisticated image reworked by engeneer's digital tools. On the contrary, when one shoot on film, that's what is in front of camera he cares about during filming. That's why actor's performance are more noticeable with film because there is no editing interference to overcome and distract from it. A not so good actor's performance filmed digitally can be masked by special effects, playing with editing tricks and reworking the cameras shots that will no more be like it has been shot on set. Film is more genuine because it sticks to reallity, digital is more forgiving.because its approach and vision is to remake something diffrent than what has been captured by camera anyway. Film obliges the filmmaker to think in an artistic way first and foremost while digital world is much more technical and focus on reblending shooted material. That could explain that some young people want to get a try to film, it can't be nostalgia since they are too young to remember past time with film cameras. None is better, they are just different.
The best "digital vs film" comperation I have ever seen! Totaly what was on my maind.. That the past memories has an effect on our choice!
I am an experimental filmmaker myself who began on a 3 chip camera in 2005. Now, I shoot on an iPhone 13, and rent a 16mm camera or Super 8 if I want to do a project to achieve the film “look”. I think that people like Tarantino are sort of full of it. He has his opinion, and that is just his subjective opinion, and it does have to do with nostalgia. It really does have to do with people getting stuck in their ways. In the end, digital still takes ones and zeros and creates individual frames out of those ones and zeros. So, if you have the actual tangible film frames that do this, or the camera does the task, for me it does not make any difference. I do prefer to work in digital for many other reasons though like lower cost, not having to store film or worry about it being eroded or damaged, having to worry about getting a shot or lighting right the first time, and lastly, I manipulate my images a lot with effects and overlays in post, and so by the time I am finished, nobody can tell if it was film or digital that I used anyways lol.
I just think digital cameras, audio etc it’s all so slick and perfect. I feel without a bit of roughness it loses vitality.
Me hiciste reflexionar, siendo sincero nunca me puse a pensar en que hubiera pasado si el cine empezaba como algo digital, quizás todo sería diferente.
@cinefitinc Great video! Enjoyed the whole thing.
I don't know much about this and was left wondering; when you ask us to compare the formats we're seeing in this video, since I'm watching it on my phone, isn't everything I'm seeing, digital regardless of how the images were shot? I'm assuming my screen can only produce 0s and 1s.
My pov is that digital sensors dont need powerful lights and sometimes the film maker can get away without using any movie lights at all. So we get the digital look.
I think digital is better for one reason and one reason only, it’s cheaper. When I was a kid I had to limit how much photos I take on film because one film roll plus developing it costed 3 weeks of my allowance. Kids nowadays can take as much photos as they want, they can edit it easily, and easily share it with others all around the world. Now you can be a hobbyist filmmaker/photographer while only needing to buy a used iPhone 8 for $50 dollars. Being cheaper makes it more accessible, and that means more people can join in and our community can grow larger. Digital should never fully replace film, but it’s a good thing that it’s becoming the norm. In the end, the tool you use as a creator doesn’t matter as much as your skill and your creativity. A passionate professional on a $20 webcam can create much more beautiful shots than an unmotivated amateur with a $20,000 kit. The fact that photography and videography are more accessible now to more people is a good thing.
Nice review man !
Thank you for this very grounded discussion.
terrific look at the differences, pluses and minuses between the different ways of capturing images
Very interesting. I grew up in a village in Alaska. We did not have a movie theatre. So I grew up watching VHS tapes. 30 + years later I’ve collected some of my favorite movies on VHS. It out weighs my desire to see a movie on film in a theatre. Nostalgia is strong.
I love this video! Hoping your channel has more or you have a podcast
Thanks so much! I’m considering just dropping this in a podcast too. You just don’t get the b-roll while I talk which is pretty significant. Any suggestions on just making this an audio podcast?
Very interesting video, my friend! My passion for movies is deeply bound to cinematography. I'm 44 now and I had the pleasure and privilege to start in photography with analog cameras. I remember to use an old Zenit camera while I was discovering and learning the art. A fun fact is that I always had the feeling that old pictures from the 70's and 60's, took with good cameras and good perspectives, was more artistic than my shots, in the late 90's. And, for each new camera I use I feel I'm loosing something. As the excess of information on digital is making the thing looks everytime more and more artificial. But, knowing I'm a very saudosist person, you threw me in an unquiet paradox.
Internet totally needed this video.
So thanks a lot
I would love to see you talk more about cinema. You are great at talking about films
Even if you record on film, 95% of the time it will be necessary to undertake a digital conversion before presentation. This in itself can create a multitude of different characteristics depending on how the film is processed during conversion. The only way to appreciate the intrinsic characteristics of a given film is through analogue projection.
First thing I thought too. Negates this whole conversation. You’re still gonna end up looking at pixels, digital
@@superstar5123 exactly. I dabble in film photography and the negative conversion process is super subjective in terms of post processing. The end result can be very different depending on who is doing the conversion.
Does shooting with film force other decisions, like those related to special effects? Deciding film vs digital may have a cascade of other decisions resulting from them that creates a different feel or look of the overall movie.
Great vid hope you upload more
Film is a beautiful leatherbound story book.
Digital is a brand new reading tablet.
Very interesting topic and well-handled. Both are good mediums, aesthetically. Does one require more care and effort in lighting or in post-processing? As a photographer, not a videographer, I would think film has less latitude in those respects, but maybe not. And what about the archival properties of each medium?
Great questions. I’ve never filmed on any professional film medium. I’ve recorded and lit scenes with an ARRI Alexa however, many times. Only once with film and on a super 8mm camera years ago. And I’ve got to say, it was a lot of fun. So couldn’t tell you about latitude in lighting on film. If you listen to the Team Deakins (aka Roger Deakins) podcast, I’ve heard him say more than once that film has a great deal of latitude. It can be pushed. The sun can come out after you’ve metered a certain scene and it should still be ok. Obviously, the type of film stock and ISO rating are very relevant as well. But I’m also certain others will argue that digital is catching up fast if not already on par with film in terms of dynamic range.
In terms of as an archival medium, my personal opinion is that film beats our digital hands down. If you want something to last multiple decades, you store it on film. In fact, I believe most large studios store their digital assets on film in addition to multiple digital backups. Digital hasn’t had a chance to really prove itself. It’s only been around for about 40 years.
Less latitude means limitations, which again means an increased need for creativity.
Love your thoughts on this subject and love your slow considered delivery, such a pleasant change from the crash bang high speed delivery of most CZcams screamers. And you didn’t open with the tiresome “Whats up guys”.
Please don’t change.
Loved the video I look forward to seeing more from you
Thanks so much Grant! They’re hard to make well. But I plan to keep them coming. 👌🏻
The only thing that's objectively better about film is its ability to be upscaled to greater dimensions without losing shaprness while digital images have a fixed resolution and cannot be reliably upscaled (although the possibilities with AI are really thrilling). But there are also things that make digital images objectively better: they can't get rotten, they can use CGI much more straightforwardly and they can be distributed to the public in home media formats. Also, to create new digital masters of movies shot on film that use little to no CGI, the process typically only requires a good scan at a higher resolution and some little color tweaking, while digital films can be a pain in the ass to remaster, as they usually apply a lot of digital renders, so upscaling can ruin the credibility of the VFX. I think that, if your process is going to use a lot of practical effects or little visual effects at all, it's best to keep it on film and make many well-stored copies of the recordings and the final cut to prevent film rot (but it's always more pricy), otherwise, digital is better if you shoot at 8k or 4k, especially because the film look can be sort of faked via VFX (I know many filmmakers don't like it, but there it is). But, you know, nothing is perfect, and screens always get larger, so even that pixel count could not be enough in the future, so maybe it's better to keep it on film and sacrifice convenience when working with CGI. Like you said, it's an unresolvable dilemma that involves budget and art purposes.
I’m a hardcore film guy. I went to theaters over ten times this year alone to watch movies projected on film. But the notion that film isn’t manmade in the same way digital is belittles the work of generations of scientists who built this stuff. The main reason film is so great is it’s artistic and archival quality. There are about 300 theaters left world wide that can project film. There are about the same number maybe twice as many that can project digital at its best. For any normal theater the look of film can be reproduced well enough for audiences to except it as the look. I’m not advocating for just emulating it when you can just shoot it but that’s the reality. As proven by The Last Jedi which was shot 50/50 on film and digital and looks as closer throughout, to a movie finished on film than a lot of movies shot on film and finished digitally. Yes there are real, important technical benefits to shooting film and more important artistic and technical benefits to finishing on film but for regular home viewing or DCP projection the limitation is not the tech of digital but the artistic capabilities and technical understanding of the filmmakers.
This argument HAS to be the same as the issue audiophiles have with compressed audio.
I genuinely can't tell any difference in 'crappy mp3s' and lossless.
BUT I had a strong internal reaction to the comparison in this video of the LOTR to Hobbit. I guess I'm a film guy, and for us, there's no comparison.
I am fully aware that it is an endless debate, but at least for me and my generations, we are brought up on celluloid whether photography or cinematography where we loved the feel of film, its wide dynamic range, its organic natural material, so it will be logic to love films over digital. The factor killing the debate in my opinion, is sharpness and clarity, why should we need surgical sharpness ? If we understand this point so film wins
Thanks for the video, There is something very important what in my opinion you forgot to mention here is, the avalability what High end cinema cameras giving you to , process them in post , and very sure when pro colorist does it , its very hard to tell weather it was shot on film or digital . 12-16 bit raw images have that range to be processed , soften etc.
Also for s final texture some directors filming out a digital image in the end of production and thats where its getting even harder to guess if it was shot on film or digitally.
I personally find the small rise of films shot digitally then going to film before being scanned back to be a very interesting middle ground between the two mediums
Great discussion. I love almost all of these films and they all have their own spot for all of us, because the film 70mm films do seem to have a different "pace" not sure if that is real or not
I'm sure everyone who reads this message will enjoy it very much if you watch the documentary whose link I left below. Expressing his personal thoughts in the documentary, Nolan says: In my opinion, cinema is photochemical film, everything else is just video.
side by side 2012