Could Digital Kill Film?

[Robin R Probyn]

Different technologies, products, processes, look different, no argument here -- look at all the passionate arguments about Cooke vs. Zeiss vs. Leica lenses that some people fall into. Back in the 1980's, there were similar discussions on Kodak vs. Fuji vs. Agfa, or even between processing at Technicolor vs. Deluxe. And that doesn't even factor in how individuals affect the performance of these tools. And even another factor is simply stylistic over time, 80's cinematography versus 2010's, whatever.

 

But the degree of difference is sometimes exaggerated because we all have a personal bias.

 

But when I see a carefully shot comparison test like those done by Steve Yedlin, ASC:

 

My impression is that the visual difference between the two technologies are not so extreme as to justify a "this is good... but that is bad" sort of conclusion.

 

 

I think Mr Yedlin ASC .. did everyone a favor with his tests .. all production s managers, producers and DP,s should have to sit through it by law.. it puts alot of BS to rest.. as we can see when the same dp replicates very basic shots..(Blade runner reference :)..

There is very very little difference. In fact a small amount of post could make them almost identical..

But more is the point that the cinematography should not and never will be the deciding factor that makes a film good or bad.. except for .0001 % of the audience that are DP,s themselves.. its only ever there to serve the story.. not over power or bring notice to itself only.. and top working DP,s on large budget feature films seem to know this.. well ok except for Storaro :)

Of those 2 frames.. were they from a movie.. would the film frame be the better film .. even if the Arri frame actor was alot better and had a much better script ,and director.. either is fine by me.. Im not against film.. but the insistence that only movies shot on film are any good is illogical captain..

[Robin R Probyn]

Enjoyable thread.

 

What are the recent Coca-cola commercials shot with? I'm not a professional, it's difficult for me to decipher if it's film.

 

 

Do you like them for the acting,directing,framing,visual feel.. any emotion it has for you.. it doesn't matter what they are shot on.. don't worry Roger Deakin's doesn't know the difference either.. who would be classed as a professional, even by this forums standards .. wouldn't he ..?

[Doug Palmer]

My impression is that for TV digital and film originated dramas these days look practically identical. Assuming that the lighting and style is properly done. Take a look at Gunpowder, the new BBC historical drama. Imdb doesn't give details but I'm assuming it was digitally shot, though in letterbox format. Beautifully lit and thankfully no shaky cameras this time !

Where film still has the edge is at the cinema. And I really mean film projection. It's a totally different experience. There is something about all those individual and unique frames being implanted on one's retina. And maybe the slight flicker does something too. Comedian Michael Bentine apparently believed it actually caused physical change: "at certain frequencies an entrainment of the mind occurs". In other words there's a sort of hypnosis that continues a long time after you've seen the film ;)

If that's true it would be interesting to find out if there's any difference in people's recollection of films shown digitally v. chemically.

[Jon O'Brien]

When I used to attend amateur film club screening nights back in the 80s as a teenager (travelled a long way to do that!) the 16mm films just looked incredibly glorious. I still remember the exact look. I've never seen anything that comes close to beating it. Same with 35mm feature movies shown with film projectors. If you love movies, you've got to go and see real projected film.

 

Specifically for digitally-projected feature movies shot on film, I wonder if they can develop a cinema projector that could re-introduce the right type of flicker and get as close as possible to a film projector look - I don't think they will ever get it as good, but they might get very close and that would be great - as would being able to still keep going to see the real thing in selected theatres.

Edited October 30, 2017 by Jon O'Brien

[Tyler Purcell]

Specifically for digitally-projected feature movies shot on film, I wonder if they can develop a cinema projector that could re-introduce the right type of flicker and get as close as possible to a film projector look - I don't think they will ever get it as good, but they might get very close and that would be great - as would being able to still keep going to see the real thing in selected theatres.

Piece of cake to achieve with a mechanical shutter which is timed to each frame change.

 

But it's still 3 DLP imagers which have fallen out of calibration. It's still a technology that bounces light off imagers instead of going through them. It's still a in most cases 2k system with the very rare 4k release. It's still very limited pixel height when discussing widescreen titles.

 

So where the "flicker" addition would be cool, the image would look pretty much the same. DLP is a kickass technology, it really is, but it's never going to beat film's dynamic range or color reproduction, let alone film prints depth that digital hasn't been able to recreate.

[Alain Lumina]

 

Does shooting on film make a film better? In my opinion the limitations and certain preparations required for a shoot on film does put everyone on a higher level of attention, more excited for the outcome and actors tend to take things more seriously as well (learning lines, rehearsing, blocking) Does film look better than digital? Digital filmmaking has come a long way, sometimes I myself cant tell the difference if its been shot on film or not but that's very rare. Most of the time young filmmakers will spend a lot of time color grading their raw files to make it look like film, even kids taking pictures on their phones!

 

 

 

To me this is the hugely underestimated thing for micro-budget--where I'm at.

 

My day job is clinical psychology, with filmI'm writing attempts at pretty serious if surrealistic drama, and the unfortunately low-paid but talented people I work with ( I have never made a dime off filmmaking, it's cost me thousands) definitely feel the seriousness and TRADITION behind film and seem far more serious and committed because of it.

 

In America CONVENIENCE and EFFICIENCY are worshipped, and TRADITION has as many negative connotations as positive. These are absurdly midguided values with which to create anything but children's sequels ( ad even the know a fake when they see it. )

 

In micro budget-- the only world I know-- there's a HUGE psychological difference in the sensation of time passing during a film take --it's inherently a far more accurate experiential simulacrum of life-- "this moment is your one and only chance to live this."

 

With digital, it's like "We're modern, no silly irretrievable expenses with US, we're WITH IT. We'll just try it again!" unless, I guess if you're in the rarified air where many takes are in the budget.

 

Also I read 80% of our brains are dedicated to visual processing, I think it's naive to believe the same effects can be had with a totally different, less organic process with far less randomicity.

 

 

With cell phone addiction, there's the additional question of "are our MINDS dying?" A more paranoid person could see us as becoming automatons programmed by Skynet. When I see someone glued to their phone now, I see them as controlling each other, not as a person with a tool.

 

But I use digital too, to get shots I could not afford to light otherwise, I'm not a purist but I want to face

 

It's been mentioned here that this debate is already old, and it's true. I've been posting this screen cap in these discussions here an elsewhere as a challenge:

 

Post me ONE FRAME of digital that is as beautiful as this from STORY OF A PROSTITUTE 1965. No one has ever responded. And it's "only" B&W.

 

[Max Field]

Maybe no one has ever responded cause the frame isn't all that beautiful...

 

On digital shoots I semi-shout "c'mon, money's running through the camera" to get crew and actors back into position quicker (They don't realize it's a joke cause none of them were alive for film). Crew members are gonna take the attention to detail and problem solving ability of their director more seriously than what medium it's on.

Edited October 31, 2017 by Macks Fiiod

[fatih yıkar]

When I used to attend amateur film club screening nights back in the 80s as a teenager (travelled a long way to do that!) the 16mm films just looked incredibly glorious. I still remember the exact look. I've never seen anything that comes close to beating it. Same with 35mm feature movies shown with film projectors. If you love movies, you've got to go and see real projected film.

 

Before this thread i never thought Digital projection is a big problem. The last movie i watched from film projection maybe 9 years ago, i can't really remember how it looks but i watched several old movies from digital projection, a year ago i saw Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) i can say ıt has the same look to i saw on dvd and blu-ray but i will never know how ıt can be look on film projection..

[fatih yıkar]

Different technologies, products, processes, look different, no argument here -- look at all the passionate arguments about Cooke vs. Zeiss vs. Leica lenses that some people fall into. Back in the 1980's, there were similar discussions on Kodak vs. Fuji vs. Agfa, or even between processing at Technicolor vs. Deluxe. And that doesn't even factor in how individuals affect the performance of these tools. And even another factor is simply stylistic over time, 80's cinematography versus 2010's, whatever.

 

But the degree of difference is sometimes exaggerated because we all have a personal bias.

 

But when I see a carefully shot comparison test like those done by Steve Yedlin, ASC:

 

My impression is that the visual difference between the two technologies are not so extreme as to justify a "this is good... but that is bad" sort of conclusion.

 

David, i wish that couple of scene from ''Love Witch'' shot on Alexa in this way we can make a really fair comparison..

 

For me i'm not sayin digital and film has so much difference nowadays, movies from old times, 90s and early 00s looking so different than nowadays movies and i think they lookin so much good.

Recently i watch the (wonder woman) i can't believe ıt was shot on film because ıt's loooking too digital.

 

I don't know what exactly changes shooting on film process or technologies but only conclusion i have (film stocks changes) and (digital intermediate) responsible for extreme difference.

Edited October 31, 2017 by fatih yıkar

[Aapo Lettinen]

what was the point of that Yedlin test? to show us that one can have about similar framing and FOV with two different cameras?

 

all this "they can be made look the same, no one will notice the difference" assumes that there is only one visual look all the movies should have and anything which differ from that is "FALSE" or "WRONG" :blink:

it also forgets that the greatest differences come from the different working process which affects the director, editor, DP, acting and operating performances, lighting design, shooting ratios, setup times, freedom/restrictions to capture additional footage on the fly, etc. (the look may differ just a little but the storytelling differs a lot)

 

Audience may not notice the difference in the technical LOOK of the movie but they will absolutely notice the difference in everything else.

all the other things are therefore much more relevant in the FILM vs. DIGITAL conversation than the actual technical or look differences. For example how the storytelling differs if you are operating a Panaflex compared to Alexa Mini.

 

 

I didn't particularly like that b/w screenshot either btw, have seen 100x more beautiful material shot on both film and digital, some of the stuff also in the movies I have worked on.

 

Movie is not a single still image screenshot which can be analysed with photography terms and methods.

And cinematography needs to be always analysed at least within the scene when seeing all adjacent shots and having the complete soundtrack also available. Cinematography also has nothing to do with the shooting medium, and with still frames you are basically just comparing lighting design and composition, nothing else cinematography related there :blink:

 

again, the Deakins etc. argument that "no one will notice the difference between film and digital because they can be made look so similar" is simply not true. the look may be close but the look is not the point here: even if the look is somewhat same, all the other aspects are different when switching FILM <---->DIGITAL because the different working method affects the STORYTELLING so much and EVERY PERSON in the audience can spot the storytelling related differences right away

[Alain Lumina]

Thanks for sample post, the only way to test fair is blind testing, but the [digital] guys face sort of looks like it's not in the same place as the rest of the scene to me. The film looks more like a real representation.

Well, of course tastes vary...but still, again, no one posts what in their view is one perfect stunning frame from digital. I'm not a fanatic, I've seen stuff I like-- but nothing that looks quite like a dream to me.

 

I like the "money's pouring through the camera!" motivator, thanks. Even if it's digital, if it's rented it's true; and if not it's depreciating fast enough so it might as well be true. ( lol sorry couldn't resist a dig :) )

 

And good point, I should be more serious. Really.

Edited October 31, 2017 by Alain Lumina

[Stuart Brereton]

what was the point of that Yedlin test? to show us that one can have about similar framing and FOV with two different cameras?

 

The point of Steve Yedlin's test was actually to show how little resolution matters after you hit 4k. He shows 2k uprezzed footage alongside 11k downrezzed IMAX, and there is no visual difference. His test also shows, incidentally, how little difference there is between film and digital these days, in terms of look.

[David Mullen ASC]

Beauty is a rather subjective thing, isn't it? If I post a beautiful shot made with a digital camera, someone is just going to say "see -- it's not as beautiful as my favorite shot made in film, so I've been proved right!" What's the point of getting into such an argument?

 

Not to mention, we've had 100 years of cinema shot on film and less than 20 years of cinema some of which has been shot digitally, so it's hardly fair to argue that there have been more beautiful images shot on film than on digital.

 

Plus what is beautiful about that shot from "Story of a Prostitute" is partly a style of lighting for b&w that is no longer used today. You might as well argue that was has been lost is due to a change in aesthetics and style, not a change in technology.

[Tyler Purcell]

The point of Steve Yedlin's test was actually to show how little resolution matters after you hit 4k. He shows 2k uprezzed footage alongside 11k downrezzed IMAX, and there is no visual difference. His test also shows, incidentally, how little difference there is between film and digital these days, in terms of look.

Actually the test David was showing is from Yedlin's other video about prepping the image for presentation. He's developed a LUT system for the Alexa that mimics the "look" of film pretty well. Honestly, even with the high-res download, it took a few seconds to tell the difference.

[Michael Rodin]

Maybe no one has ever responded cause the frame isn't all that beautiful...

It's tastefully lit and the contrast is nailed. These days few know how to deal with fill light...

[Jon O'Brien]

Not wanting to get into 'deep' discussions of what reference frame we're coming from, whether post-modernist, contemporary grunge or whatever it might happen to be called, or something else, but in terms of traditional, western, classical conceptions of 'beauty' in artistic form, that's a beautiful image. As Michael says, it's tastefully lit, and the composition is excellent. It has interesting and satisfying curves and lines in it, and there is an assymetry that is very pleasing to the eye. There is dark undefined background material to the right of subject, and almost blank 'canvas' to the left with a bit of interesting texture (straw, or whatever it is). The play of light (highlights) is also slightly assymetrical (slightly more highlight, on balance, on the left). The subjects are back lit from a low angle that gives a suggestion of some sort of magic in their relationship or what they're talking about - it's like a golden lining. There are other rich, subtle details. The background is entirely inconsequential and throws all attention on the subject (the two lovers) yet is artistically framed. The whole thing, in the western classical tradition, can be described as "beautiful". It's a truly nice picture - a lot of care has gone into creating it. Students used to get taught traditional western art conception of 'beauty' but maybe not so much any more. My lighting points might be a bit off as I've never lit such a scene - but that's how it looks to me. That picture is telling a story. It's revealing a sort of 'ethos' that is being lost in the world. We need to get it back - audiences want it.

[Samuel Berger]

Only economics can kill film.

[Jon O'Brien]

Only economics can kill film.

 

Yes, economics, which is always linked to artistic will, and energy of a society. Kenneth Clark made some very pertinent observations in his long tv series (shot on 16mm!) on civilization. The show was called, naturally enough, Civilization.

 

https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-seductive-enthusiasm-of-kenneth-clarks-civilisation

[Carl Looper]

Sensory indistinguishability is a recurrent theme in art and philosophy. The argument goes back to Ancient Greece - if you can't see the difference then what is the difference?

 

If we reproduce a Chuck Close painting, using photography, we may not be able to see (in the reproduction) the difference between the painting and photography. And we could argue that if we're unable to see the difference between painting and photography, that it therefore doesn't matter which one we use (in terms of the image). Other considerations might then take hold - eg. cost etc.

 

But the whole point about a Chuck Close painting is that it operates across the boundary between distinguishability and indistinguishability. You can both see and not see the difference.

 

The same can not be said about the work of Yedlin.

 

C

Edited October 31, 2017 by Carl Looper

[Jon O'Brien]

Do other traditions have conceptions of beauty? Yes. Are they just as valuable? Yes.

[Gregg MacPherson]

Carl, you're back. Things have turned to poop in your absence..

I offer this simple idea in response to yours.....Not all human nervous systems have the same threshold of..."indistinguishability"....so what is indistinguishability, is it actually meaninfull...To whose nervous system and sensory organs is it referenced....I don't think that using the average human physiology as a reference or marker for the "indistinguishability" is meaningful.....no.

[Max Field]

Not to mention, we've had 100 years of cinema shot on film and less than 20 years of cinema some of which has been shot digitally, so it's hardly fair to argue that there have been more beautiful images shot on film than on digital.

Yeah this pretty much. I actually thought about "modern movies" in general as far as frames I love and most features were being shot on film less than 10 years ago. 100 years vs 7 years isn't a logical point of reference.

[Samuel Berger]

Not only I remember the clamor of the masses when the Canon XL1 came out, I also remember a couple years ago one guy had converted his into a video assist for his Mitchell BNC. I guess it was all it was good for. ;-)

[Max Field]

If we reproduce a Chuck Close painting, using photography, we may not be able to see (in the reproduction) the difference between the painting and photography. And we could argue that if we're unable to see the difference between painting and photography, that it therefore doesn't matter which one we use (in terms of the image). Other considerations might then take hold - eg. cost etc.

 

This analogy is somewhat... broken?

 

You're comparing a guy dedicating his life to replicating what the human eye sees with brushes and paint to another guy pressing a button and letting light hit a piece of celluloid.

 

If someone can paint with photo-realism but with bland blocking or boring lighting, the entire room will still applaud.

 

Keep it in the realm of button pressing please.

[Gregg MacPherson]

That is getting confusing. Photo-realistic painting with observable blocking? What..?