Film vs Digital. Impact on Art, Culture, Experience.

[Peter Humble]

This debate won't go away soon. I have a slightly different perspective that I don't think has been mentioned. My take is that it really depends on your approach to the "idea" of motion pictures. If your idea of motion pictures is primarily about story telling then it stands to reason that the medium of capture is ultimately not hugely important. What is important is that the filmmakers communicate the story as best they can. We are now inundated with successful examples of digital film making (story telling) to render arguments of digital versus film mute. It's not to say people won't have a preference for a look (and hopefully the choice of film remains) however as long as story telling is the main "idea" then I don't think shooting medium is particularly critical.

If however your "idea" of motion pictures points to possibilities other than strict story telling then the choice of medium is likely to be far more critical. An example of what I'm suggesting might be a filmmaker who is compelled to make the medium itself the subject matter of their work. (Think Stan Brakage/Tacita Dean) Digital capture is not an option if this is your "idea" of motion pictures. The other compelling "idea" which has atready been alluded to is "the fact" of the photochemical image. The are plenty of pratitioners who are only interested in moving image as an object. That is as a photochemical object. This "idea" of moving image I think is more about the primacy of the image over story telling and is aligned with traditional ideas of the photographic ahead of ideas of story telling. For those in this camp digital capture is also not an option.

I partly agree with Bill when he says "film and digital should be able to co-exist. Oil painting didn't disappear when photography became popular. Neither should film" Exactly. However Bill, it's definitely not all about the money. If you need to work on film you will find a way.

[Kahleem Poole]

The shame is that the majority of these new directors and "directors of photography" just don't know the bear essentials of photography. Can't remember the last time I saw a DP with a light meter or an AC measuring distance for focus marks. What ever happened to measuring your Key Light, Fill Light and Back Light? Everything is a given on digital. Nothing is earned. There is no evolutionary process.

 

Is it fair to say that these people aren't DPs simply because their tools are different or the workflow isn't recognizable?

Granted that the whole sloppy rush-rush attitude is widespread (more due to this generation rather than the tools), but just because the guesstimation aspect of photography is gone doesn't yield better or worse results. Being able to see your image WHILE shooting proves to me more of an advantage and not the other way around.

 

Maybe I think of photography from an illustrator's perspective, where I see my canvas and refine and refine as I go along (with time allowed on set). So while I completely understand the ideas and functionality of light metering, for my own workflow it's too much of a guessing game; leading to sleepless nights wondering if the shot worked, will it look like crap, etc etc. I'd rather paint on set, refine, edit, etc. until I get a great image under the limitations given to me :)

 

That doesn't mean it's cheap or a haphazard attitude either, because it simply isn't.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Kahleem, can you at least admit that digital, if properly done, does not usually have a cost savings advantage? Case in point...the "getting it right" you speak of in terms of exposure and look (by having instant feedback via being able to see it on set) can only be obtained with properly calibrated monitors. These things are not cheap if you're shooting HD and it gets more expensive shooting 2k/4k. Do you agree that shooting digital ultra low budget (aka without a quality monitor) it not much better than say shooting film with a video tap in terms of instant feedback?

[Kahleem Poole]

Kahleem, can you at least admit that digital, if properly done, does not usually have a cost savings advantage? Case in point...the "getting it right" you speak of in terms of exposure and look (by having instant feedback via being able to see it on set) can only be obtained with properly calibrated monitors.

 

Unfortunately that's a blanket statement that doesn't have a simple yes or no to it.

This totally depends on the camera in question. Are we talking about the Digital Bolex, Black Magic CC, Canon DSLRs, Alexa, Red Epic? For the most part these cameras come with their own monitors that are more than capable of handling exposure and color according to the sensor's inherent capabilities. It's only when deciding to purchase a secondary monitor does the calibration issue come into mind. Additionally, is the monitor for the DP or for the Director to simple "see" what's going on and not judge what the DP has to?

 

For my own workflow, I prefer a viewfinder or EVF because I like to personally connect with my shots and think on how I expose and compose. I personally find a monitor intrusive as everyone is now looking over your shoulder and their opinions tend to dilute or interfere with what I'm trying to do. Usually the viewfinder is default but an EVF is simple research on what is best for your color choices.

 

You can quickly go out and shoot a movie of some sort just with the default body with many of these cameras, or you can build them up for bigger budget use.

 

 

These things are not cheap if you're shooting HD and it gets more expensive shooting 2k/4k. Do you agree that shooting digital ultra low budget (aka without a quality monitor) it not much better than say shooting film with a video tap in terms of instant feedback?

 

Untrue. A video tap is a reference for the Director or maybe even the AC, as I mentioned before with my own use for monitors.

The camera's default LCD/Monitor is already calibrated [usually] to the sensor's capabilities for color and exposure for the DP. They aren't one in the same.

 

It's really when other factors come into play that seem to add cost when they really don't. Film DPs complain about DITs when they're there in the film shoots as well. They just don't have as strong of a role. I personally don't use DITs, instead I educate myself on the process and so do other DPs who shoot digitally as well (see Shane Hurlbut). The complaints are also on monitors when they're there on films shoots too. The same monitors, the same video villages, there isn't much of a difference with that accessibility. And I would have to say that for the most part 2k/4k monitors aren't important right now because the higher resolutions are more relevant in post work, not for the video village on set.

 

Digital does in fact have cost savings advantages at the ultra low levels that couldn't be done with film.

My first documentary feature was started with little more than a Canon T2i, an LCDVF, my laptop and an army of ext. harddrives, all out of pocket on a $0 budget from any investors. I couldn't have done that on film because I just couldn't afford to.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

The camera's default LCD/Monitor is already calibrated [usually] to the sensor's capabilities for color and exposure for the DP.

 

With all due respect, Kahleem, this statement is bullsh!t and I think you know it. Your digital white-washing is becoming farsical and so I dont think it is productive for me to continue bantering with you about this. I have heard and read countless serious DPs who shoot digitally complain about even the highest level of viewfinders like the Red One and even more complaints on the lower level like 5d, etc. As far as the t2i, I did audio for a number of t2i shoots last year (sadly) and all of them complained that the image in FCP was not what they expected by looking at their viewfinder.

 

This thread may have intended to resolve the film vs. digital but we can't discuss things if people wont be honest.

 

PS- I can be honest about the not so great aspects of shooting film. Primarily cost, potential for dust/hair in the gate, loading time, waiting for dailies (although this doesnt bother me, per se, some see it as a negative) and bulkiness of large film loads for when you want handheld work.

 

I have heard you offer ZERO negatives of shooting digital like its the perfect format. Get a clue man.

[Kahleem Poole]

With all due respect, Kahleem, this statement is bullsh!t ...

 

Yeah, maybe you should quit while you're ahead.

You're not looking for a discussion. Just for an outlet for your pseudo-elitist, pompous attitude. Good day.

[Giray Izcan]

Kahleem,

I prefer film over digital for sure, but don't see the point of bashing on digital. As for cost of digital versus film, I think they cost about the same, of course I'm talking about Red or Alexa type of cameras. With film, you have initial costs such as film, dailies, etc; however, post production for those high end cameras are rather time consuming and costly. So in the end, the cost is about the same. Also, film costs makes up about 1/1000th of budget in major movies; most of the money is spent on lights, crew, actors and actresses. The supposed cost savings of digital over film may not be life altering. As for the quality, personnally, digital cameras look like video to me in comparison to film. If I have to have black and white approach, digital is video, film is film; therefore, I don't see the point of emulating an already existing film technology. People who prefer digital should just make the most of video, instead of trying to make it look like film. Also, how about never ending changes in digital? How many Red and other sensors has the industry been through within a decade? Amazing image quality with these digital cameras may be kind of obsolete in 2 years..Then again, cinematography is a form art, and the artists are free to convey their creativity in digital or film. So, I don't think judging anyone on the basis of preferred tool of craft is necessary. I shoot on film, and have no desire to move to digital; you shoot on digital I guess, well, so be it.. I can learn certain things from you, and you can learn from me, etc. Anyways, good luck with your art.

[Chris Millar]

Mathew, calm down will ya - it's ok - it's just a forum.

[Giray Izcan]

I forgot to mention one more thingin my last post. I actually miss having digi betacams around for video. For some reason, I prefer a well shot dbeta over dslrs etc..

[Kahleem Poole]

Kahleem,

I prefer film over digital for sure, but don't see the point of bashing on digital. As for cost of digital versus film, I think they cost about the same, of course I'm talking about Red or Alexa type of cameras. With film, you have initial costs such as film, dailies, etc; however, post production for those high end cameras are rather time consuming and costly. So in the end, the cost is about the same. Also, film costs makes up about 1/1000th of budget in major movies; most of the money is spent on lights, crew, actors and actresses. The supposed cost savings of digital over film may not be life altering. As for the quality, personnally, digital cameras look like video to me in comparison to film. If I have to have black and white approach, digital is video, film is film; therefore, I don't see the point of emulating an already existing film technology. People who prefer digital should just make the most of video, instead of trying to make it look like film. Also, how about never ending changes in digital? How many Red and other sensors has the industry been through within a decade? Amazing image quality with these digital cameras may be kind of obsolete in 2 years..Then again, cinematography is a form art, and the artists are free to convey their creativity in digital or film. So, I don't think judging anyone on the basis of preferred tool of craft is necessary. I shoot on film, and have no desire to move to digital; you shoot on digital I guess, well, so be it.. I can learn certain things from you, and you can learn from me, etc. Anyways, good luck with your art.

 

Agreed.

 

I find flaws in digital filmmaking as well compared to film and vice versa. Digital is much more precise, accurate and somewhat clinical. So you have to go through certain post workflows to remedy this. I admittedly use effects to emulate my favorite emulsions and sometimes I'll leave it more "clean" depending on the subject matter (Vision 3 500T is my favorite of all time).

 

I find some cameras look more videoy and some more filmic. Panasonics definitely look like video to my eye and depending on the picture style and in-camera options, some DSLRs do. Then there are those that look so much like film it's hard to tell the difference beyond grain or color, such as the Alexa, BMCC and Aaton Penelope.

 

It's not an us vs them problem, despite how some people try to make it. This all totally depends on your choice of canvas, brushes, paints and subject matter. That's it.

The rest, to me anyway, tends to fall purely on preference or hipster vintage obsessed mindsets.

[Giray Izcan]

Kahleem,

I don't agree with what you mentioned as to digital being more accurate and precise. I think it is just a matter of being used to a particular system. For example, I know what results I will be getting when I shoot film under different light set ups, etc. Then again, nowadays, many digi cinematographers don't even know how to use light meters, and evaluate their lighting accordingly. For those film may be really mysterious, because of lack of monitors and gadgets tell them what to do.. Also, I don't agree with film shooters being vintage obsessed hipsters. Do you think Mr. Nolan and many other major filmmakers try to be vintage obsessed hipsters when they shoot movies like Dark Night series, Dark Shadows, Bourne movies, etc? Anyways, good luck.

[Kahleem Poole]

Kahleem,

I don't agree with what you mentioned as to digital being more accurate and precise. I think it is just a matter of being used to a particular system. For example, I know what results I will be getting when I shoot film under different light set ups, etc. Then again, nowadays, many digi cinematographers don't even know how to use light meters, and evaluate their lighting accordingly. For those film may be really mysterious, because of lack of monitors and gadgets tell them what to do.. Also, I don't agree with film shooters being vintage obsessed hipsters. Do you think Mr. Nolan and many other major filmmakers try to be vintage obsessed hipsters when they shoot movies like Dark Night series, Dark Shadows, Bourne movies, etc? Anyways, good luck.

 

Under film's conditions, so do I, but that's not necessarily what I mean.

Digital tends to be "accurate" based purely each sensor. And the parameters never change. Ever. So what it sees is what it will see exactly 100% of the time each time.

With film, even the same emulsion may see something slightly differently per frame. And, I personally find that to be its own unique beauty.

 

Anyhow, with the "hipster" comment, I'm most definitely NOT specifying them or people like them. It's more of the folks who can't see past digital's negative sides and remain in the "film or die" manner of thinking. It doesn't really help anyone and if someone makes gorgeous art with digital, it's still art. The tool of choice isn't the make or break factor.

 

That's what I meant.

[Giray Izcan]

Kahleem,

Oh ok, yeah I agree with you then. Btw, this whole film versus digital debates remind me of childish my truck is bigger than your truck fights haha.By the way, I sawbyour videos in critique my work section. Those are pretty cool, reminds me of the movie the Wrestler.

[Kahleem Poole]

Kahleem,

Oh ok, yeah I agree with you then. Btw, this whole film versus digital debates remind me of childish my truck is bigger than your truck fights haha.By the way, I sawbyour videos in critique my work section. Those are pretty cool, reminds me of the movie the Wrestler.

Thanks, man; I really appreciate that. That's my super 16 influence carrying with me ;-)

And I agree with you as well on the debate. Why can't people just choose the tools that best suit the story and their specialties instead of bashing one another? It's ridiculous.

[Gregg MacPherson]

This debate won't go away soon. I have a slightly different perspective that I don't think has been mentioned. My take is that it really depends on your approach to the "idea" of motion pictures. If your idea of motion pictures is primarily about story telling then it stands to reason that the medium of capture is ultimately not hugely important. What is important is that the filmmakers communicate the story as best they can. We are now inundated with successful examples of digital film making (story telling) to render arguments of digital versus film mute. It's not to say people won't have a preference for a look (and hopefully the choice of film remains) however as long as story telling is the main "idea" then I don't think shooting medium is particularly critical.

 

If however your "idea" of motion pictures points to possibilities other than strict story telling then the choice of medium is likely to be far more critical. An example of what I'm suggesting might be a filmmaker who is compelled to make the medium itself the subject matter of their work. (Think Stan Brakage/Tacita Dean) Digital capture is not an option if this is your "idea" of motion pictures. The other compelling "idea" which has atready been alluded to is "the fact" of the photochemical image. The are plenty of pratitioners who are only interested in moving image as an object. That is as a photochemical object. This "idea" of moving image I think is more about the primacy of the image over story telling and is aligned with traditional ideas of the photographic ahead of ideas of story telling. For those in this camp digital capture is also not an option.

 

I partly agree with Bill when he says "film and digital should be able to co-exist. Oil painting didn't disappear when photography became popular. Neither should film" Exactly. However Bill, it's definitely not all about the money. If you need to work on film you will find a way.

 

 

Post 8

 

Hey Peter,

I'm sympathetic to your thoughts about the "idea" and "story". I tried to bring up a theme on "story" before on the forum but I may not have tried very hard. The thread was called Poetry...Story...Bladerunner...Prometheus..... Here in the Film vs Digital thread we may have an idea or word in common that we are each using or loading with meaning in an opposite sense. The word "object", for example the "photochemical object" in your text. I'm suggesting that the photographic object transcends it's own objectness and enables more refined direct experience. Digital imaging is a "crude" oversimplification that enhances it's own object value and disables the direct enlivenment of more subtle subjective values.

 

I would like to see a thread or two that just focused on the issues to do with story. Subject lines like:

 

Story vs Simple Continuity of Useful Experience (in films)

or

Story vs Idea ...... etc, with vs meaning a comparison..

 

I might start a thread with the first of those titles when I get a chance.

The title may have said enough. Maybe the only absolute is that we have some useful experience, some anticipated pleasure or a contact with something that we think is valuable. People are very invested in a notion of "story", but I'm not really sure what story is. Is it a ubiquitous notion. When character takes over what should we call it? When a single emotion or a mix of emotions takes over what should we call it. Or an overwhelming poetic quality? Often there may be a narrative layer remaining, existing to serve some other layer of experience, a feeling.

 

Most of the great films that are dear to me are not dominated by narrative. So what do we really mean by "story". (rhetorical question). I think "story" may be the defacto word that people use trying to suggest whatever potent glue that's actually holding a film together. And sometimes that's really hard to put your finger on.

 

Suppose a film has the same function as a shaman at the campfire, leading his audience from one condition of experience to the next with their willing participation. Such a sophisticated process, so many layers of experience. I can't simply call that story telling. But if I chose to, then I guess the word "story" again becomes very loaded. Now, modern people are far removed from this "shaman at the campfire" context in the literal sense. Our style of awareness is now grossly over-objectified and the common use of the word story means narrative, along with some feint yearning for the simple wholeism of the past.

 

 

The Film vs Digital, Impact on Art, Culture, Human Experience thread.

To borrow some of my own text, I'm trying to find .......the right language to intuitively traverse between (ideas of) common objective observation, non conscious reception of visual information and subtle states of conscious awareness.

 

The sequence of interactions that occur between photons and object then photons and eye or emulsion could be considered at a very fine level, down to the quantum mechanical level or beyond. This is an intuitive but fairly safe and useful descriptive idea. To be fair, when I go on to say or infer that the photons effectively carry encoded information on the quantum level from their interaction with the actor, that is a speculative notion of mine. While this is a direction I would like to explore, it may not be vital to my theme at the basic level.

 

Light interacts with the actors skin. The basic unit is the photon. Very tiny . So a very detailed map. Ariving at the retina this finely detailed map is draped onto the rods and cones. A rod or cone, for instance, is not just a "photon bucket" as pixels are sometimes likened to, or a photon counter. A photon is tiny compared to a rod or cone. So my intuitive idea about it is that multiple photons map their part of the image over an individual rod or cone. They have the potential to behave in the same way when they arrive at a film emulsion. . They don't when they arrive at a digital sensor.

 

And so on.......Ideas about the relevance of this to the more subtle states of human awareness, hence art, culture.

 

Cheers,

Gregg.

Edited December 13, 2012 by Gregg MacPherson

[Gregg MacPherson]

I must say Gregg, maybe I am just stupid, but I can't make heads or tails out of many of your posts in this thread either. I will take your word for it that this is not pseudo-intellectualism, but I think I will have to bow out of the discussion as well. It is getting too deep for me;)

 

Oh must you?

Joseph, I just read that again. Maybe I was too generous. So getting into the feisty mode of those running the large emotive sidebar in this thread...... I think you're being sarcastic, yes? You think my text is just pseudo-intellectualism? Perhaps it seems like that in comparison to your own post, in a down home syle that never extended beyond the cooking turkey as media metaphor.

Edited December 14, 2012 by Gregg MacPherson

[Marcus Joseph]

Again the editing function disappers too fast for me.

Marcus, you may think me too critical or too much of a piss taker already, but I meant to add.......

 

PS: There is plenty of art that is over 200 years old. Get out more, look around at a museum or on the internet.

Of course there is a lot of art, and I wasn't talking about what art is left. I was talking about how much has really survived and in particular, motion picture film which probably can't take a number to anywhere near how much has been lost. A lot of people are trying hard to restore whatever they can and similar people will do the same in the future too.

 

If you want to shoot film, then do it. Maybe you can show the world what they're missing out on? No point just talking about it on an internet forum.

 

Also Kahleem, very nice work with that MMA documentary, you got some really high profile people in there too. I can imagine how effective running around with a dslr can be in those situations.

[Kahleem Poole]

Of course there is a lot of art, and I wasn't talking about what art is left. I was talking about how much has really survived and in particular, motion picture film which probably can't take a number to anywhere near how much has been lost. A lot of people are trying hard to restore whatever they can and similar people will do the same in the future too.

 

If you want to shoot film, then do it. Maybe you can show the world what they're missing out on? No point just talking about it on an internet forum.

 

Also Kahleem, very nice work with that MMA documentary, you got some really high profile people in there too. I can imagine how effective running around with a dslr can be in those situations.

 

Thanks, man. I'll start off a new thread in the Critique section to show off the other trailers for those interested :)

[Joseph Konrad]

Oh must you?

Joseph, I just read that again. Maybe I was too generous. So getting into the feisty mode of those running the large emotive sidebar in this thread...... I think you're being sarcastic, yes? You think my text is just pseudo-intellectualism? Perhaps it seems like that in comparison to your own post, in a down home syle that never extended beyond the cooking turkey as media metaphor.

 

No, I apologize; I was getting tired of reading the posts. I shouldn't have said that.

 

I think you raise an interesting point with regards to human perception, but just using certain phrases does not put your writing or thinking on a higher intellectual level than other members.

 

I do think if you organize your thoughts differently with correct grammar, spelling, and so on, I think more people will respond to you.

 

As for my metaphor, maybe it is simple, but it reflects my desire to boil things down to where they are understood and immediately useful. I think art can be made with digital as well as film, but to me and the kinds of movies I want to make, film is superior and it is my medium of choice. If I used digital, I would be trying to imitate film. It really would be like an imitation turkey to me because it would be second-best. However, I am aware that this is just my own personal perspective and that new types of 'art' can emerge through digital shooting; there's a very clean, slick aesthetic there that is not achievable with film, and I can certainly see the potential value in that. My problem is with the elimination of film, not with the existence of digital. I wish they could co-exist side by side, like CDs and Vinyl did throughout most of the 80s. I do think that young cinematographers are wise to master digital because it is not going away anytime soon, and I respect the attitude of people like Kahleem who are making the best of whatever medium they are working in.

Edited December 14, 2012 by Joseph Konrad

[Matthew W. Phillips]

My problem is with the elimination of film, not with the existence of digital. I wish they could co-exist side by side, like CDs and Vinyl did throughout most of the 80s.

 

This is 100% where I come from. I apoligize to Kahleem if I ever was offensive. I just felt Kahleem was treating film as an outdated medium. Its not outdated to those who mastered it, know it better than digital, prefer it, and can utilize it for their own visions. I respect that most people will use digital and when I did sound shoots, I never mentioned it to anyone.

 

I was on one particular shoot with this Director who was so pedantic about his takes that he shot only about 1 page per day and his DP had to be upset because this guy was never satisfied. Dude didnt have much of a budget either. Good thing he was using digital because film would have buried him. Therefore, if you MUST have a ton of takes and you arent rich, better go for digital.

 

My directing style is tighter, more rehearsed, storyboarded to a tee because I know exactly the camera angle I have in mind, I hate shooting coverage I know I wont use (since I will edit my own films) I sortof dig the old school Robert Rodriguez method of pre-editing your films. Like James Steven Beverly said "its a way to ensure that the Directors cut is the only cut."

[Gregg MacPherson]

No, I apologize; I was getting tired of reading the posts. I shouldn't have said that.

 

I think you raise an interesting point with regards to human perception, but just using certain phrases does not put your writing or thinking on a higher intellectual level than other members.

 

I do think if you organize your thoughts differently with correct grammar, spelling, and so on, I think more people will respond to you.

 

As for my metaphor, maybe it is simple, but it reflects my desire to boil things down to where they are understood and immediately useful. I think art can be made with digital as well as film, but to me and the kinds of movies I want to make, film is superior. .....

 

Post 9

 

Joseph,

You're very polite. Thanks for that. So here's to better spelling and grammar. Can't make any promises. I do a basic check for spelling and grammar, but sometimes strict grammar doesn't quite allow the rhythm of our thoughts. It's a forum, so I guess I allow myself that. Other times it may just be bad grammar.

 

Regarding the relative level of writing or thinking in play. I don't think I have an assumption about that. Amongst the ideas offered is the proposition that human awareness is becoming progressively conditioned to prefer the objective over the subjective. The world looks increasingly more like a collection of small discrete units and we loose sight of whatever glues all that together. Relationship, wholeness, consciousness itself.......If I'm right, then simple recognition of this is difficult in the modern world. It requires the intellect to traverse toward more subtle subjective states. Or that subjectivity simply be more vital, in which case my proposition may just seem like common sense.

 

Modern humans may not easily have a common language that makes it easy to consider issues in this zone, but the underlying ideas are ancient. So I'm trying to use words that may help trigger simple recognition, words that may be useful and consistent later on.

 

I overheard a friend once joke that marketing people try to "borrow your watch to tell you the time". Pulling that out of context, I'm looking forward to someone telling me "gimme back my watch....I already knew that". Probably he didn't, but that's often the way it feels.

 

Thinking of the turkey as media metaphor. Just as GE soya in the tofu turkey may pose risk to the human genetic code, digital technology poses a huge risk with its conditioning of human experience. So while some value of art in the cooking or art in digital media is still enabled, the danger or risk is there. With digital, this issue has basically been ignored.

 

The coexistence issue. Even if the cinemas kept their projectors, we are overwhelmingly exposed to digital images, hence very exposed to the conditioning process. This conditioning process is affecting film makers and perhaps especially cinematographers. So I see coexistence as almost impossible. I see instead small islands of resistance. I always think that artists will be the last refuge of common sense that will keep film alive. But there are (lets say) two kinds of artists. The first kind, deeply sensing the coming chaos, has an ecstatic experience painting the inferno so to speak. The other kind, absorbed in something more wonderful, enabled that experience in us and maybe this held the chaos at bay.

 

Worst case scenario. Anarchic artists with no compassion working in film with ideas and form that helps us all slide into the crapper (funny but sad). But, digging as deep as I've got, I don't know what's really going to happen or how long it will take. I'm more optimistic that my words suggest.

 

I just read Matthew's post. Things are getting so (expletive) polite around here. Take a bow Joseph, maybe you started that.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Gregg MacPherson

[Kahleem Poole]

This is 100% where I come from. I apoligize to Kahleem if I ever was offensive. I just felt Kahleem was treating film as an outdated medium. Its not outdated to those who mastered it, know it better than digital, prefer it, and can utilize it for their own visions. I respect that most people will use digital and when I did sound shoots, I never mentioned it to anyone.

 

 

Not a problem dude. No harm, no foul.

And most definitely, film isn't an outdated medium. If your tool gets the job done and helps you express your work effectively, "outdated" doesn't apply.

[Giray Izcan]

Amen to that!

[Will Baldy]

Hello, I just finished shooting a film on super16 with a arri sr2. It was great fun but REALLY hard work. The camera chewed some footage, but we got past that. We didn't have a monitor or anything we only has kit that was available in the 70's. Which made my job (cinematographer) harder.

Given the opportunity I would do it again (next time with updated kit)

Here is a film I just finished, I wasn't going for the film look but it looks sharp. I filmed on a 5DMK2 with Zeiss CP2 primes. Let me know what you think, and please pass it around if you like it.

 

[David Desio]

FFS aren't people tired of this debate already? Look if a cinematographer can make a beautiful image, it doesn't matter to anyone but armchair critics and snobs what the format was. To lump all digital cinematographers in to a category that basically calls them all talentless is like saying every painter that uses acryllics instead of oils is a hack, or water colors, etc. It's ridiculous. When shooting digital you still have to light it, compose it, execute it. When film was king there were still terrible films being made. Our world has changed and I don't think the format has anything to do with our culture's shifting tastes.