FILM vs DIGITAL

[Gregg MacPherson]

....every artist needs ‘all’ the tools available to them to create their work. With film-making I believe that it’s more important for the artist to create their work where they can choose freely and work in a way where they feel comfortable....

Pav

 

I can't tell whether you think that film makers/artists do have a choice, or that they should have a choice. Film as an option is being squeezed out. Already it is almost impossible to finish a film photo-chemically, without use of digital technology. The supporting technologies are all but disappeared. If people can't see a contact print from a camera negative how can they know what film really is. It's back to simulation, reconstruction, expectations founded on cultured experience.

 

I know that a title like Film vs Digital is a hopelessly loose beginning point that may remind you of numerous debates, but if you think this comparison has been exhaustively made and that you heard it all then.....I challenge you, I disbelieve you.

[John E Clark]

 

Film as an option is being squeezed out. Already it is almost impossible to finish a film photo-chemically, without use of digital technology. The supporting technologies are all but disappeared. If people can't see a contact print from a camera negative how can they know what film really is. It's back to simulation, reconstruction, expectations founded on cultured experience.

 

This sort of process has already been acomplished pretty much for 'commerical/wedding' still photography. Up to 2004, the Wife and I had 3 local labs to chose from for processing from negs to prints. We had given up our inhouse darkroom by 1995, but still there was a lab which processed and printed actual real live B&W negs which we used. Even then, we had pretty much transitioned form pure film to 99% digital, and for her last few weddings which were outside the US, it was exclusively digital coverage.

 

Due to her health issues, we discontinuned the wedding biz. We had not realized how much things had changed until about 3 years ago, when an old customer emailed that they were finally ready to get their album... I mean something 15 year had passed, they had never selected the images for the album back when... any way we looked around for how to print from these negatives... none of the processing places were still open. The only thing we could offer was a package deal where we would have all then negs bulk scanned, and reprinted in at a company somehwere in the Mid-West US (the Wife got various types of sponsorships for her conference seminars from a couple...)

 

I think people are going to have to come to terms about the economics of Film film, and for most people Digital film will be the only viable option.

 

To be sure, someone with a 'large budget' and a history of performance may be able to call the shots on one or the other, but I suspect that is a rapidly dwindling number.

 

On the other hand, Art Gratia Artis... perhaps there will be specialty houses that can afford to buy in bulk, and for a princely sum, people can make small project Film film 'art works'.

 

I can make still 'wet' plates for my 4x5 camera... just as was done in the late 19th Century, or use non-silver based image capture, and make 'sun contact prints'... again just as was done in the early stages of photography... for art... and naturally with the proviso, that I can only make 4x5 images...

 

But I suspect for 'moving pictures' and the speed at which processing houses are disappearing, even 'for art sake' may not be an option.

(There's also a group of artists who go out and find old expired film and shoot and process it for those 'degraded' characteristics...)

Edited September 14, 2014 by John E Clark

[George Ebersole]

This horse is dead, but I'll chime in again.

 

Eventually you'll be able to choose a setting on a digital camera that'll mimic film (if you can't already), and that the definition of image will surpass anything created a by chemical process on the molecular level.

 

As far as artistic choices go, again it's all about money. If you're shooting local car dealer spot verse something for MAERSK shipping verse a feature, any good DP/Cameraman or director worth their salt will choose the right format.

 

There've been several threads on this topic, and I think Tim Tyler shut down the last couple because it was old hat.

[Gregg MacPherson]

This horse is dead, but I'll chime in again.

 

 

Well this kind of determinedly superficial response is is nothing new, yes. This is the thing worth comparing to a dead horse.

[Giray Izcan]

If digital is better than film, why do people try to achieve the film look on video? Better in terms of what? Resolution or the overall film watching experience from the visual stand point? How come many major movies such as the new Bond, the Amazing Spiderman 2 are going back to film? Maybe it's me but I can see the quality of film originated movies due to its rich and deep pictures with better color tonality and more three dimensional quality as opposed to digital which is imho is 2 dimensional. Digital tries too hard but can't achieve that. Obviously this is just my personal opinion. Even one of icon cinematographers, Mr. Deakins, his earlier films such as Fargo, The Assassination of Jesse James and No Country for Old Men have that depth and richness as opposed to his recent works on mighty Alexa look rather flat and boring. Personal opinion of course and am not bad mouthing Deakins. Who am I to bad mouth him anyways? Anyhow, hopefully I'm making sense.

[Manu Delpech]

@Giray: nailed it. So many movies or shows shooting digital are shot with the intention of getting it to look as close to film as possible, when it's not even close. If we're talking technically, then yeah, digital is going to (if not already) surpass film on that aspect, but I personally do not give a f*** about 6K resolution, or having the sharpest image possible, which is pretty much one of the issues Delbonnel has about digital when he talked about it in this Hollywood Reporter roundtable, it's just too sharp, too hyper real, where's the magic? where's the emotion?

 

Agreed on film being richer, having better, or more pleasant colors. The Amazing Spider-Man 1 looks really good, but TASM2 going back to film with the great Dan Mindel is something else, it's so much more pleasing to the eye. About Deakins, Skyfall still looks fantastic, so does Prisoners, but yeah, I do miss his work on film, there's just no comparison in my opinion.

 

Wally Pfister has been pretty vocal on the subject & while he sounds cartoonish sometimes, I totally get his point of view when he says: "I am not going to trade my oil paints for a set of crayons"

 

It's over the top for sure, but I get it.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Manu Delpech

[George Ebersole]

If digital is better than film, why do people try to achieve the film look on video? Better in terms of what? Resolution or the overall film watching experience from the visual stand point? How come many major movies such as the new Bond, the Amazing Spiderman 2 are going back to film? Maybe it's me but I can see the quality of film originated movies due to its rich and deep pictures with better color tonality and more three dimensional quality as opposed to digital which is imho is 2 dimensional. Digital tries too hard but can't achieve that. Obviously this is just my personal opinion. Even one of icon cinematographers, Mr. Deakins, his earlier films such as Fargo, The Assassination of Jesse James and No Country for Old Men have that depth and richness as opposed to his recent works on mighty Alexa look rather flat and boring. Personal opinion of course and am not bad mouthing Deakins. Who am I to bad mouth him anyways? Anyhow, hopefully I'm making sense.

 

There's actually a real psychological reason for it, but I'm not getting paid to write about, so I'll just touch on the topic. It has to do with how we view the world, and discern what's real and what's simulated. Film has that simulated quality that people like

 

I mentioned this on another thread with the guy getting stepped video from his standard def camera, but I helped shoot a stage audtion using a Panasonic provision camera, and when the cameraman and I ran that video through a powermac, it was crytsal clear, and had the benefit of a 24fps shutter speed.

 

The worst that could be said was that (aside from the dirty lens, which I swear to this day I cleaned several times over), the image almost had too much information in it, veering it away from a filmic look, to a kind of ultra-definition film. I actually liked it, but if I was your typical movie goer who grew up in the 80s or 90s, I might think that image looked strange, and not like a real feature film I was used to seeing.

 

If you want more, you'll have to pay for it.

 

Hope this helps.

[Younes Boudiaf]

 

Wally Pfister has been pretty vocal on the subject & while he sounds cartoonish sometimes, I totally get his point of view when he says: "I am not going to trade my oil paints for a set of crayons"

 

It's over the top for sure, but I get it.

 

My preferred contemporary director is Christopher Nolan, and I love the look of his films which Wally Pfister give and I watched the documentary side by side for more than 10 times ! but I still disagree with Wally Pfister, and also with Chris Nolan about some of what he said ! you can say whatever you want about Film (grained, has a soul, is a god,...) this will not change what technology will give ! yes film has better look ! but HE ( because he has a soul as you mentioned) WILL DIE ! (fortunately or unfortunately it depends on the point of view), its not about nowadays ! this is life and 100 years of Film is nothing compared to centuries of science developing. and I am pretty sure that Wally or Chris will soon or late use Digital or any other Medium that will give awaaaaaaaaaay better quality in other aspects than Film or nowadays Digital and I am sure that he will not just trade his oil ! but he will throw it out ! and also my eyesight doesn't have grains !! so why should I care for God sake about GRAINS in Film ! its a choice and its a part of the evolution process of the Cinema we will always mention it in history as we will mention Digital one day the 00's and 1's of the Digital when Quantum tech will take place ! so please don't see with a long focal lens make your lenses wide and look at the big picture.

[John E Clark]

If digital is better than film, why do people try to achieve the film look on video?

 

Analog video had some severe limitations. With digital means, and higher resolutions, greater dynamic range, electronic capture, if that is what you are referring to as 'video', was released from some amount of those limitations.

 

Even now, 'video' must conform to Rec. 709 or even Rec. 601 so that media will 'play' on as many TV sets as possible.

 

With Rec. 709, 'video' productions can take advantage of higher resolutions, different frame rates, and 'better' color space.

 

I would also suggest to you that 'film look' has changed over the years even with Film film.

 

Relative to the 50's some of the 'new wave' Hollywood of the 70's looks like 'crap', heavy grain, uncontrolled lighting due to shooting on location with then 'minimal' light support, etc. But that 'look' was part of the era of 'gritty realism'. The 'Bleach Bypass' process that has had some 'vogue' in the past 30 years would have never made it to see the light of the projection room during the 'golden' years of Hollywood. 'Color film' was touted to be 'so real you would think you were there'... not crapped up with weird colors, heavy grain, etc.

 

Here's a 50's rendition of 'bar scene' with Judy Garland, "A Star Is Born"(1954)

 

 

 

Here's her daughter in "Cabaret"(1972)

 

[Manu Delpech]

 

My preferred contemporary director is Christopher Nolan, and I love the look of his films which Wally Pfister give and I watched the documentary side by side for more than 10 times ! but I still disagree with Wally Pfister, and also with Chris Nolan about some of what he said ! you can say whatever you want about Film (grained, has a soul, is a god,...) this will not change what technology will give ! yes film has better look ! but HE ( because he has a soul as you mentioned) WILL DIE ! (fortunately or unfortunately it depends on the point of view), its not about nowadays ! this is life and 100 years of Film is nothing compared to centuries of science developing. and I am pretty sure that Wally or Chris will soon or late use Digital or any other Medium that will give awaaaaaaaaaay better quality in other aspects than Film or nowadays Digital and I am sure that he will not just trade his oil ! but he will throw it out ! and also my eyesight doesn't have grains !! so why should I care for God sake about GRAINS in Film ! its a choice and its a part of the evolution process of the Cinema we will always mention it in history as we will mention Digital one day the 00's and 1's of the Digital when Quantum tech will take place ! so please don't see with a long focal lens make your lenses wide and look at the big picture.

 

 

You don't get it, it's not about quality necessarily (if you're talking purely sharpness, resolution, dynamic range, etc), but it's about the look, it can also be about the simplicity of it as Pfister says, it's about eliciting different emotions, or a different response, or it being more authentic for certain subject matters, or just having this love & fidelity for film. Pfister, Nolan, Zack Snyder, Ben Affleck, Jeff Nichols, PTA, Bennett Miller, Derek Cianfrance, James Ponsoldt (The Spectacular Now, etc), David O'Russell, Scott Cooper (Crazy Heart, Out Of The Furnace, Black Mass), etc don't shoot film for the KICKS, they shoot it because they love it, they love film & the look of it.

 

"My eyesight doesn't have grain" has got to be one of the most mindblowingly silly comments I've read on the subject, grain is an inherent part of the texture of film, it's organic, it lives in a way, you remind me of those kids who, when watching movies shot on film that can be quite grainy at times, are saying "what is this? I like it when it's all smooth & sharp & clean".

 

Anyway, I'm not sure your english is good enough for you to articulate your ideas correctly, and I just feel you don't understand the approach of someone loving film, or even the concept of it.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Manu Delpech

[Younes Boudiaf]

 

 

My eyesight doesn't have grain" has got to be one of the most mindblowingly silly comments I've read on the subject, grain is an inherent part of the texture of film, it's organic, it lives in a way, you remind me of those kids who, when watching movies shot on film that can be quite grainy at times, are saying "what is this? I like it when it's all smooth & sharp & clean".

 

Anyway, I'm not sure your english is good enough for you to articulate your ideas correctly, and I just feel you don't understand the approach of someone loving film, or even the concept of it.

Yes indeed I am not a native speaker, English the the third language, so don't expect from me to be Shakespeare, and for the record the idea of camera came from the Eye, so human being is trying to mimic the eye, and grains are not meant to be on film for artistic reasons they are there because human being is still not enough evolved to make something like an Eye ! sharpness wise or Dynamic range or field of view (Fusion camera system for example), so the fact that you like Grains doesn't make them part of the art !!! and those kids are smart if they noticed a Goddamn grain on something that supposed to mimic their eyes !! so please get rid of the grains from mind and let us discuss a bigger picture not some sharpness and silly grains !

[Manu Delpech]

I'm saying grain is an inherent part of FILM, like film film, 16 mm, 35 mm, not A film. Film has a more dreamlike quality I'd say. And grain is not silly, not by a long shot, it's very desirable for many filmmakers wishing to shoot on film, grain is part of the structure & texture of the image shot on film. If you're a DNR aficionado & fan of clean looking images, then great for you.

 

What I'm seeing is that you are clearly a digital fellow, biased towards film & not understanding my point of view or hell why a director would choose to shoot film, you know, with all that "silly" grain.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Manu Delpech

[Younes Boudiaf]

I'm saying grain is an inherent part of FILM, like film film, 16 mm, 35 mm, not A film. Film has a more dreamlike quality I'd say. And grain is not silly, not by a long shot, it's very desirable for many filmmakers wishing to shoot on film, grain is part of the structure & texture of the image shot on film. If you're a DNR aficionado & fan of clean looking images, then great for you.

 

What I'm seeing is that you are clearly a digital fellow, biased towards film & not understanding my point of view or hell why a director would choose to shoot film, you know, with all that "silly" grain.

I know exactly what you're talking about Manu ! and I know so many people who thinks the way you think with the same taste and not just About FILM (the Silver halide medium) but about other things, and I think we have different ways to approach the subject, I am looking it from the outside and in long term, and you're making the technical differences,

 

and Hell yes Directors still shooting on Film with its grains because its still has a better look not for the sake of the unavoidable grains ! (and by the way I don't hate grains)

[John E Clark]

I'm saying grain is an inherent part of FILM, like film film, 16 mm, 35 mm, not A film. Film has a more dreamlike quality I'd say. And grain is not silly, not by a long shot, it's very desirable for many filmmakers wishing to shoot on film, grain is part of the structure & texture of the image shot on film. If you're a DNR aficionado & fan of clean looking images, then great for you.

 

What I'm seeing is that you are clearly a digital fellow, biased towards film & not understanding my point of view or hell why a director would choose to shoot film, you know, with all that "silly" grain.If

 

Film film grain is as much 'noise' as digital noise, just apparently for some number of people it has been elevated to a 'aethetic' attribute. If 'film grain' had been seen as an integral part of Film film, then Kodak and other companies could have stopped development of film around 1925-30 for B&W materials, and the industry left with ASA/ISO 25 materials... Ok, perhaps around 1950 for color film.

 

The Film film production companies did not 'stop', as most 'professionals' were asking for finer grain at higher ISO values, if it had to be part of Film at all.

[Gregg MacPherson]

Are we supposed to believe that photons arriving at a sensor photo site have nothing useful to offer other than being countable and having a wavelength. It's actually bizzre, and denies much subtlety in the whole inquiry. The fact that we deny all but those two things (countability and wavelength) is not a reflection on them or their physical reality at all. It's an indicator of our very limited view at this point in history.

 

A piece of film grain is not just counting photons. The interaction of the photons with grain in a film emulsion is something that I don't think we understand. At this point in history people are not too interested. These are inconvenient concepts.

[Bill DiPietra]

Now I understand why Tim shut down the last "Film vs. Video" thread.

 

Enough, guys. This has ceased to be a healthy debate.

[Satsuki Murashige]

I think there is a productive discussion to be had about personal preference and what we find each medium's strengths are. For me, I find I just do better work overall with celluloid.

 

Because I'm not constantly reviewing and editing my decisions based on seeing the actual image as it is recorded, my brain stays in creative mode and I'm able to move faster, more instinctively, and I can visualize better. That's not to say that celluloid instantly makes everything better; it's certainly possible to shoot crap on film, I've done it. But somehow my gut reaction to my digitally shot work is often 'meh', even when I feel I've done good work. When I feel I've done good work on celluloid, I get much more excited and get lost in the images.

 

I'm not sure how much of that is delayed gratification from not seeing the finished product until days or weeks later, and how much is because the work is better than I had imagined. But the difference in feeling for me is undeniable. I will miss not being able to shoot celluloid when it is no longer an option.

[Royce Allen Dudley]

Oh boy... I dread this kind of discussion and have sidestepped it for the past decade whenever possible BUT I must point out...

 

First of all, gas or electric, you must know how to drive a car. Sudden access to any car does not make you a skilled driver. So it is with the democratization of cinematography through digital, wherein anyone with any recording device and a vimeo account is now a DP. If you ask them.

 

OK... at this point in the game, digital capture can be ( not "IS", but "can be") indiscernible from film capture if done in the hands of a skilled DP and properly finished. It's a moot conversation, anyone who chooses to shoot in film and gets to must be studio elite or self funded indie auteurs, it's simply no longer a choice for most working DPs answering to a producer, period !

 

A point that is usually getting lost in this conversation which I find far larger than the shift from negative to chip itself was mentioned in the round table video and I am aware of it profoundly; the autonomy of vision and trust once afforded the DP through the need to wait for dailies is now gone.

 

The paradigm shift in procedure, video village for everything, DIT on set, truly undermines many a DP's best potential work on the day by serving to continually water down or deviate his intention by group think.

 

Aligning vision with the director who has the stones to let the DP be the Director of Photography and not merely the camera dude, that is now the focus for a DP, more than the medium itself.

 

We are in a transitional time where there is much sound and fury... you know the rest of the quote.

[John E Clark]

I don't mind the 'instant' sanity check. Never did like hiking to some nowhere place, taking shots, then in the darkroom realize that I had a light leak... or whatever... the only 'magic' was when a still print came up from white paper... obvioulsy I was processing B&W by hand...

 

But that's it. For me the 'image' is the paramount element. Since I tended to use higher f-stops, and if diffraction wasn't a problem... I would have used f/64... well... for nonmoving objects... So, in that regard Gregg Toland is a 'model' to follow.

 

The higher ISO values available to digital with lower noise, allow me to use a higher f-stop is a major benefit.

 

'grain' to me is noise, whether 'randomized' by orientation of silver halide crystal glumps or electronic noise, and I tend to prefer its minimization. There are a few effects were such 'noise' is useful, but as an aesthetic attribute... not for me.

 

One of the more significant attributes of digital is the tendency to 'shoot more'. But that is a discipline thing, and can be 'corrected' by setting one's goal for takes to be no more than needed to get the performance, (and not take 50+ like Monroe required for some shots in "Some Like It Hot"(1959)... all Film film...), as well as planning shots with minimal coverage before hand... legend has it that Hitchcock was very minimal on his shots and takes, and the 'editor' was pretty much left with just trimming and assembling. Again another role model...

Edited September 17, 2014 by John E Clark

[Manu Delpech]

Except that grain isn't noise.

[Stuart Brereton]

Except that grain isn't noise.

Grain is noise, it's just not fixed pattern noise, and because we are used to seeing it, it is regarded as acceptable.

[Gregg MacPherson]

Grain is noise, it's just not fixed pattern noise, and because we are used to seeing it, it is regarded as acceptable.

 

A grain is evidence of interaction between photons and a crystal. Do we understand what that interaction was? Do we understand what a photon is? Or how much useful information that it might embody? Without having an answer to those questions, and under the crushing necessities of history in the making, we pretend that grain is just noise, an artifact of no real value. And because we are momentarily conditioned to see it this way, these thoughts are regarded as acceptable.

[Stuart Brereton]

We can all discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, Gregg. Whether that is a useful discussion is another question. Grain is noise, because it is not information. That's not to say that it is undesirable or unattractive, but let's call a spade a spade.

[Gregg MacPherson]

Lets say there is a strata of knowledge between the pragmatic and the profound, with basic Newtonian mechanics at one end and metaphysics at the other. Experiments with pucks on an air table vs counting angels on the pin head. Enquiry about whether photons carry or embody information beyond their countability and wavelength belongs somewhere in the middle. As does the higher end of modern science. The enquiry into photons began about 100 years ago (Einstein, Heisenburg, Schrodinger), but we still live our consensual life on this earth as though Newtonian mechanics are an adequate explanation.

 

If a photon carries or embodies useful information beyond its countability and wavelength..... And if, as it interacts with some element in the film emulsion, it leaves evidence of that information.....I think that is very interesting. It is just a spade, I think, but a very interesting one.

 

The primary concern for me is what information may be expressed upon a camera negative. The problems arising from duplication for mass distribution are a separate issue.

Edited September 18, 2014 by Gregg MacPherson

[John E Clark]

Lets say there is a strata of knowledge between the pragmatic and the profound, with basic Newtonian mechanics at one end and metaphysics at the other. Experiments with pucks on an air table vs counting angels on the pin head. Enquiry about whether photons carry or embody information beyond their countability and wavelength belongs somewhere in the middle. As does the higher end of modern science. The enquiry into photons began about 100 years ago (Einstein, Heisenburg, Schrodinger), but we still live our consensual life on this earth as though Newtonian mechanics are an adequate explanation.

 

Actually the 'photon' idea has been around a lot longer than that. Newton proposed the idea of 'corpuscle', which held for 100 years till it did not explain certain experiments that strongly suggested wave like characteristics. Modern optics holds both wave and particle that is 'photon' characteristics are useful, depending, in explaing observations about 'light'.

 

In any case, no matter the path of the photon through space, or its interaction with silver or compounds of silver, nor the processing of these compounds to reveal a latent image, imbue upon that physical artifact, any form of 'soul', or 'life'.

 

The human observer projects what ever attribute, value, etc. upon the physical result.

Edited September 18, 2014 by John E Clark