Could Digital Kill Film?

[Stuart Brereton]

The gap is not closed, but narrowed, no?

From a technical standpoint, the gap is nonexistent. The remaining differences between film and digital are aesthetic, and therefore a matter of taste and opinion. The only thing that will kill film is economics, and that is something that so far hasn't happened. In the stills market, there is a small, but profitable market share for film. I would imagine that something similar will continue to exist in motion picture as well, although the market forces at play in the movie industry are considerably more complex

[Max Field]

The remaining differences between film and digital are aesthetic, and therefore a matter of taste and opinion. The only thing that will kill film is economics, and that is something that so far hasn't happened.

I was always under the impression that highlight clipping and color science are still the very apparent gaps.

 

Can a $6000 camera (URSA mentioned before) really have the equivalent DR of celluloid?

[David Mullen ASC]

Kodak themselves claim between 14 to 15 stops of dynamic range in color negative and the ARRI Alexa measures at 14.5-stops. Add to that the finer noise/grain level for digital and you have more latitude for color-correction in the shadows, and the lack of grain in digital also allows for more latitude in cropping & enlarging. In some ways, you could almost consider that a "downside" in that going to larger sensors with more pixels doesn't necessarily create as visible a jump in quality compared to going to larger film formats, you can mix 3K Alexa with 6K Alexa 65 footage with less of a change in visible quality compared to mixing 35mm and 65mm, or 16mm and 35mm.

 

Of course film behaves differently than a digital sensor, particularly as you overexposed the image. And film doesn't have pixels, compression, etc. until it gets digitized. And many archivists would place more bets on YCM film masters on acetate base surviving over a century than any data storage format short of continual migrating of data.

 

I agree with Stuart that the primary argument for shooting on film is aesthetic followed by archival. "Standards" of quality all depends on how you want to define quality. If a lack of grain is your definition of quality then you are more likely to hold digital as a standard.

[David Mullen ASC]

I would also add that there is the emotional element of defining the look of cinema based on the movies you grew up with. Some people are resistant to higher frame rates, HDR, lack of grain, etc. because that has little to do with the look of movies they admired growing up.

[Max Field]

I would also add that there is the emotional element of defining the look of cinema based on the movies you grew up with. Some people are resistant to higher frame rates, HDR, lack of grain, etc. because that has little to do with the look of movies they admired growing up.

I feel that's something many die-hard film lovers have a harder time admitting.

[Keith Walters]

I feel like I've stumbled across a forum discussion from 2007, not 2017...

Ahrrr yes....

http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=3932&page=2&do=findComment&comment=28874

 

(Can't go any earlier; correct me if I'm wrong, but this forum appears to have only started in Jan 2004 :rolleyes:)

Mind you, approximately the same discussions have been going on virtually since the first videotape rolled in 1956.

Video technology has changed recognition since then, and the various pos(t)ers have come and gone, but B.S. hasn't really changed since at least biblical times.

But life was much slower then; such discussions had to be carried out via letters to the editors of paper magazines. (In 1956 that is, not biblical times).

Plus you had to get past an editor, who could often make a reasonably accurate call on whether their correspondents had even the vaguest clue of what they were talking about, which is something you don't get on forums like this.

I'd love to see some of these guys posting on CML :-)

I still have the links to some of the more memorable responses from the those-who-don't-suffer-fools-easily brigade.....

[Tyler Purcell]

I would also add that there is the emotional element of defining the look of cinema based on the movies you grew up with. Some people are resistant to higher frame rates, HDR, lack of grain, etc. because that has little to do with the look of movies they admired growing up.

Completely agreed.

 

It's an aesthetic that's been around for 100 years and it defines what "cinema" is. When you remove that aesthetic, it's no longer "cinema" it's now television.

[Tyler Purcell]

Ahrrr yes....

http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=3932&page=2&do=findComment&comment=28874

Per David's comment about never having loaded a 35mm film camera before. I couldn't imagine not knowing the equipment I use and maybe even own, inside and out, to the point of even memorizing certain part numbers.

 

It's that curiosity that's kept me loving film for so long. There is always something new to learn and explore.

[David Mullen ASC]

I've been shooting 35mm for the past month on a project, still haven't loaded a mag or threaded the camera itself. Not that it wouldn't be fun to learn that, but it isn't necessary nor is it even a good use of my time on set. Not sure why my cinematography would be any better if I threaded the camera myself, any more than if I was the one to replace a burned-out globe in a lighting unit.

 

But everyone has different degrees of interest in the mechanics of filmmaking. I certainly know more than many working cinematographers about obsolete film formats and color film processes, and know more about Silent Era movies than many, but I can't say that my knowledge has a lot of practical application every day on a film set.

 

But I've never been an equipment owner nor do I have any mechanical skills, that's just not where my passion lies.

[Samuel Berger]

But I've never been an equipment owner nor do I have any mechanical skills, that's just not where my passion lies.

 

That's definitely a good thing. A lot of us suffer from Gear Acquisition Syndrome and just obsess over equipment like madmen. And then suddenly we have all this crap that we've spent a fortune on and that doesn't make us better cinematographers. It's hoarding.

[Tyler Purcell]

But I've never been an equipment owner nor do I have any mechanical skills, that's just not where my passion lies.

Good point and yea... I mean you know A LOT about the medium. Which is funny for someone who doesn't have "mechanical" skills because some of the stuff you've discussed here, is very technical and mechanical as well.

 

Would you say your understanding of things is more on the creative side as a consequence?

[Tyler Purcell]

A lot of us suffer from Gear Acquisition Syndrome and just obsess over equipment like madmen.

Well... I mean if you buy equipment and it doesn't make you money, then the point of owning is silly.

 

I own a fancy edit bay because it makes me money. I own cameras because they're either on rental OR I'm using them to make money.

 

I own projectors, flatbeds, rewinds, film freezer, darkroom, tools and workbenches, due to convenience of working with the medium.

 

I honestly can't imagine not owning this stuff and working on film. To me, it's all part of the learning process and if you never get a chance to see your stuff projected, never get the opportunity to randomly go shoot stuff for fun for experimentational purposes, it kinda looses the "fun" for me.

[Samuel Berger]

Yeah, stupidest thing I did lately was to get talked by a friend into buying a fully rigged new-in-the-box BMPCC with lenses and accessories from someone else. That was just idiotic. If I hadn't made that mistake I would now own a 2-Perf Arri IIc. I spent $2500 on something that couldn't be given away now, and that was just two months ago. I only use it for family home movies and it doesn't look near as good as the stuff shot on my Fujica ZC-1000 or Canon 814XL-S.

 

If I were to sell it now I think I'd lose about $1500. Nobody is under the Black Magic spell anymore, unless you're talking Ursa Mini Pro, but that too will go away.

[Tyler Purcell]

Nobody is under the Black Magic spell anymore, unless you're talking Ursa Mini Pro, but that too will go away.

Meh, still using my pocket cameras. Love'em, they work great, easy to use, great/flawless codecs and perfect post workflow. Mine have literally been around the world on 6 documentary series and worked great.

 

The fact you can fit 2 cameras, 4 lenses, batteries, cards, audio, accessories and two bottles of water in a backpack smaller than most people's laptop bags and all of that for the price of ONE A7SMKII, is beyond impressive for the quality image they reproduce. In my "to be so humble" opinion, having shot a documentary feature on Canon 5DMKII and MKIII's plus worked with the GH4/GH5 and Sony A7SII on many occasions... I can attest to how much BETTER the Pocket is in pretty much all situations outside of the "large imager" look, slow-mo and low-light, neither one of which I have any interest in.

 

I can't wait to get an URSA Pro, they just came out with a optical low pass filter with IR reducer for $600 bux or something. It pretty much solves all the problems the camera has, outside of it's size and weight, which for what it is, isn't any different then the competition.

 

I'll be a "devotee" until Blackmagic goes out of business and even then, probably still using their products long after. I just like their color science, I like how "soft" the imager feels and looks. To me, it doesn't look as digital as the competition for the same price range. Also... it takes some talent to get a good image out of it, no joke.

[Samuel Berger]

Meh, still using my pocket cameras. Love'em, they work great, easy to use, great/flawless codecs and perfect post workflow. Mine have literally been around the world on 6 documentary series and worked great.

 

The fact you can fit 2 cameras, 4 lenses, batteries, cards, audio, accessories and two bottles of water in a backpack smaller than most people's laptop bags and all of that for the price of ONE A7SMKII, is beyond impressive for the quality image they reproduce. In my "to be so humble" opinion, having shot a documentary feature on Canon 5DMKII and MKIII's plus worked with the GH4/GH5 and Sony A7SII on many occasions... I can attest to how much BETTER the Pocket is in pretty much all situations outside of the "large imager" look, slow-mo and low-light, neither one of which I have any interest in.

 

I can't wait to get an URSA Pro, they just came out with a optical low pass filter with IR reducer for $600 bux or something. It pretty much solves all the problems the camera has, outside of it's size and weight, which for what it is, isn't any different then the competition.

 

I'll be a "devotee" until Blackmagic goes out of business and even then, probably still using their products long after. I just like their color science, I like how "soft" the imager feels and looks. To me, it doesn't look as digital as the competition for the same price range. Also... it takes some talent to get a good image out of it, no joke.

 

But it's not film. And it will never look anywhere as good as the stuff from your Aaton.

 

In the end, digital is just glorified VHS.

[Tyler Purcell]

But it's not film. And it will never look anywhere as good as the stuff from your Aaton.

Ohh yea, that's very true. However, cost to shoot is $0 dollars. I can shoot 100 movies and the cost to make them is... wait for it... $0 dollars.

 

I shot a feature-length documentary on the making of my last movie "Cowgirls Story". Here are some random clips shot with the pocket camera.

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xonfgpua4u2kqyn/Blackmagic%20Pocket%20with%20Zeiss%2012-120.mov?dl=0 (download if you wanna watch cuz it's a lot better then streaming it)

 

That for... wait for it... ZERO DOLLARS. Sure there was some "up front" costs associated, but once you own the equipment, it's pretty amazing what you can capture.

 

In the end, digital is just glorified VHS.

I'll say this much, you won't meet a more "film centric" person than me. At the same time, I have to be realistic. As a filmmaker, I have to always be out there shooting content to better my craft. If I was stuck to always shooting on film, I'd never get anything done because the cost is just too high.

 

I'm ok with digital if it's being seen on a laptop or television because 9 times out of 10, nobody can tell the difference.

[Aapo Lettinen]

That for... wait for it... ZERO DOLLARS. Sure there was some "up front" costs associated, but once you own the equipment, it's pretty amazing what you can capture.

Not true.

Updating digital equipment is pretty expensive because they have so limited lifespan, especially if you need to change the lens set at the same time.

storing and managing the data will also cost you something depending on how you shoot, what your workflow is and which formats you use.

 

Digital shooters almost always forget the hidden costs and always presume that they would shoot hours and hours of material with 1000:1 ratios or something which is impossible anyway because of the other larger costs involved .

and there is a pretty huge difference if your camera body and possibly the lenses will need to be completely updated every two or three years and you will only get peanuts if trying to sell the 3 year old video equipment, VS a camera body which needs to be updated only every 20 or 30 years or so and lenses which can serve you even longer because the formats and mounts are more standardised.

 

I don't fully understand the Pocket Camera thing especially nowadays when fullhd originating has almost no commercial value and the Pocket concept/design is not that ideal for shooting very large amounts of material, so it is not that good for documentary stuff and is difficult to sell to customers if trying to do commercial work. for indie work it should be OK I guess if you aren't planning to get any revenue from the movie but otherwise the concept is just plain bad by my opinion and the image does not look visually that stunning either...

the only reason to buy one would be if you already own a huge lot of great quality S16 lenses which you can't sell so could as well shoot some indie stuff with them for "free" (not free of course) ;)

[Stephen Perera]

this is exactly it for me David, I'm 51 years young...it's the emotional connection one has to what a film looks like.....who can forget the look of French Connection...The Godfather.....Apocalypse Now....Blade Runner......Alien......long list.....

 

I would also add that there is the emotional element of defining the look of cinema based on the movies you grew up with. Some people are resistant to higher frame rates, HDR, lack of grain, etc. because that has little to do with the look of movies they admired growing up.

Edited October 13, 2017 by Stephen Perera

[Tyler Purcell]

Updating digital equipment is pretty expensive because they have so limited lifespan, especially if you need to change the lens set at the same time.

This is for sure the case prior to the world of digital and CMOS we live in today. I do think there is some "stability" in the world of digital cameras. I think 1080p is still the "standard" format and the least acceptable quality. I don't see that changing to the point of complete obsolescence in the next decade.

 

With cameras like the pocket, lenses aren't an issue, almost anything works. C mount, Canon/Nikon, M43, PL and even Arri B. So no issues on "lensing" and PL has been the industry standard for such a long time, I doubt it will go anywhere anytime soon.

 

storing and managing the data will also cost you something depending on how you shoot, what your workflow is and which formats you use.

Thank god 1080p and 2k ain't that big! I mean, you're right when it comes to real shows... but again, this is a zero budget conversation. So if you have a budget... then you've got something to talk about. However, with no budget... maybe you just delete the masters when you're done and save the final.

 

Digital shooters almost always forget the hidden costs and always presume that they would shoot hours and hours of material with 1000:1 ratios or something which is impossible anyway because of the other larger costs involved.

Not me, I shoot what I need, no more, no less. There is no excuse for sloppy shooting.

 

There is a pretty huge difference if your camera body and possibly the lenses will need to be completely updated every two or three years and you will only get peanuts if trying to sell the 3 year old video equipment, VS a camera body which needs to be updated only every 20 or 30 years or so and lenses which can serve you even longer because the formats and mounts are more standardised.

Ohh no doubt and that's the joy of owning film cameras. My cameras are all around 20 years old and sure, they've been maintained, but man they're for sure gonna run another 20 years OR MORE in my hands. I purchased my Blackmagic Pocket cameras in the fall of 2013, so that makes them 4 years old as of this year. They're both working great, I still make money with them all the time. I don't foresee them really getting out of date anytime soon. They are what they are and are no different then they were new. In 2013 4k was all the rave and in 2017, 4k is still all the rave but nobody streaming or watching TV cares, only a hand-full of idiots who know nothing about technology do and I tend to steer clear of them.

 

I don't fully understand the Pocket Camera thing especially nowadays when fullhd originating has almost no commercial value and the Pocket concept/design is not that ideal for shooting very large amounts of material.

Who says owning equipment has to be for "commercial" reasons. Super 16 has ZERO commercial value, yet it's so popular my cameras are constantly on rent. The pocket has been on more "professional" shoots than my film cameras.

 

the concept is just plain bad by my opinion and the image does not look visually that stunning either...

The concept is excellent, really smart/clever engineering. The idea of being incognito, is something I really like. The camera looks like a still camera, so you can literally take it anywhere and shoot anything. The camera works just like a real cinema camera too, only small. The post workflow is the best I've ever encountered on ANY camera. It's literally drag and drop native with FCP7, Premiere, Avid, FCPX an DaVinci, ZERO conversion necessary.

 

The camera has three problems... battery life, 30fps max and noisy audio pre-amps. Mind you, I've personally shot over 50 short-subject pieces with my pockets and those issues never stopped me or altered the quality of the finished product in a way the audience would be aware of. I still use the standard battery system, I still use the built-in audio system too.

 

the only reason to buy one would be if you already own a huge lot of great quality S16 lenses which you can't sell so could as well shoot some indie stuff with them for "free" (not free of course) ;)

When I go and shoot film, the first thing I need to do is GET film. My credit card comes out, I buy film and I bring it home. Then when I'm done shooting, I need to pay between .30 and .40 per foot to get it processed and transfered so I can watch it. Then I gotta sync the audio manually since there is no ref track, which is annoying. So now after a week of waiting for the film to get processed and an expense of lets say $300 bux to shoot 11 minutes of S16, I've finally got it all in my edit bay ready to go.

 

I still need to backup those files by the way.

 

With digital, I turn on the camera and I'm shooting. The cost to shoot is zero. I didn't say anything about the cost of ownership, I'm literally saying the cost to use the equipment is zero. This means, I can go out and be creative all the time without my bank account draining. If I didn't have digital cameras, I would not be a filmmaker today, PERIOD. I grew up with ENG cameras, Hi-8, Betacam, DVCAM and eventually HDV. These are the formats of my teenage and early adulthood, not film... because it was always too expensive for personal projects.

 

I'm not saying that digital compares to film in any way, in fact I made a case earlier that nothing compares to projected film. Yet, I'd rather be out there, being creative all the time, then be focused on some idealogical mission to be a cinema pureist when I'm shooting a little doc about a kid who rides dirt bikes.

 

Ohh and I actually bought my S16 lenses after I bought my pocket cameras. I've done lots of A/B testing and ya know what, the Rokinon DS lenses I bought specifically for the pocket, look so similar to my S16 glass, I don't even bother bringing the s16 glass out anymore.

 

P.S. Everything does look better on film... but if you're telling a good story, does it really matter? Film just enhances what already exists.

[David Mawson]

Not true.

Updating digital equipment is pretty expensive because they have so limited lifespan, especially if you need to change the lens set at the same time.

storing and managing the data will also cost you something depending on how you shoot, what your workflow is and which formats you use.

 

Digital shooters almost always forget the hidden costs and always presume that they would shoot hours and hours of material with 1000:1 ratios or something which is impossible anyway because of the other larger costs involved .

and there is a pretty huge difference if your camera body and possibly the lenses will need to be completely updated every two or three years and you will only get peanuts if trying to sell the 3 year old video equipment, VS a camera body which needs to be updated only every 20 or 30 years or so and lenses which can serve you even longer because the formats and mounts are more standardised.

 

I don't fully understand the Pocket Camera thing especially nowadays when fullhd originating has almost no commercial value and the Pocket concept/design is not that ideal for shooting very large amounts of material, so it is not that good for documentary stuff and is difficult to sell to customers if trying to do commercial work. for indie work it should be OK I guess if you aren't planning to get any revenue from the movie but otherwise the concept is just plain bad by my opinion and the image does not look visually that stunning either...

the only reason to buy one would be if you already own a huge lot of great quality S16 lenses which you can't sell so could as well shoot some indie stuff with them for "free" (not free of course) ;)

 

That's an army of straw men.

 

Practice quality digital doesn't have to be expensive - a GM1 or GH2 will work very well.

 

You rarely have to change lenses.

 

And in fact you don't have to upgrade - the GH2 achieved practice quality levels years ago, so why not keep it?

 

I've never met anyone who plans to shoot at 1000 to 1 and don't believe you have either - and it's irrelevant to Tyler's point.

 

Why on earth would you want to store all your takes for the type of work Tyler is talking about? You shoot; you edit that day's footage that night; you delete the rest if storage space is an issue.

 

And the BMPC is indeed used on paying jobs - it was a B-cam for the Transformers and is still an A camera for indies like Bob And The Trees.

 

And yes, you can keep a film camera for 30 years. But during that time it will need maintaining and shooting a reasonable amount of practice material will cost, what, $100,000 for film and processing? All of which you would have to store physically, applying your logic. Buying a GH2 - or even a GH5 - every three to five years seems much cheaper. Buying a used GH2 and shooting until it falls apart will probably cost $250 for 5 years shooting. That's, what, 10 to 20 minutes of practice footage on film?

Edited October 13, 2017 by David Mawson

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm just pointing out a personal flaw, I don't have any mechanical skills. It's not an advantage, it doesn't make me MORE creative but it doesn't really make me less creative either.

 

We all have our strengths and weaknesses.

 

But sometimes we conflate our passions with practical skills. When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

 

Good point and yea... I mean you know A LOT about the medium. Which is funny for someone who doesn't have "mechanical" skills because some of the stuff you've discussed here, is very technical and mechanical as well.

 

Would you say your understanding of things is more on the creative side as a consequence?

[David Mawson]

 

Buying a used GH2 and shooting until it falls apart will probably cost $250 for 5 years shooting. That's, what, 10 to 20 minutes of practice footage on film?

...As in per year.

[Aapo Lettinen]

 

That's an army of straw men.

 

Practice quality digital doesn't have to be expensive - a GM1 or GH2 will work very well.

 

You rarely have to change lenses.

 

And in fact you don't have to upgrade - the GH2 achieved practice quality levels years ago, so why not keep it?

 

I've never met anyone who plans to shoot at 1000 to 1 and don't believe you have either - and it's irrelevant to Tyler's point.

 

Why on earth would you want to store all your takes for the type of work Tyler is talking about? You shoot; you edit that day's footage that night; you delete the rest if storage space is an issue.

 

And the BMPC is indeed used on paying jobs - it was a B-cam for the Transformers and is still an A camera for indies like Bob And The Trees.

 

And yes, you can keep a film camera for 30 years. But during that time it will need maintaining and shooting a reasonable amount of practice material will cost, what, $100,000 for film and processing? All of which you would have to store physically, applying your logic. Buying a GH2 - or even a GH5 - every three to five years seems much cheaper. Buying a used GH2 and shooting until it falls apart will probably cost $250 for 5 years shooting. That's, what, 10 to 20 minutes of practice footage on film?

one needs to be pretty wealthy person to learn and practice cinematography only on film, especially if starting from zero :blink:

I was talking about shooting for end product, not for shooting only tests and for operating experience. if one is not experienced enough to shoot something worthy with a camera then of course one needs to first buy a cheap entry level camera for basic tests and for gaining experience and then move on to more challenging scenarios and camera systems.

 

by my experience, a 4 or 5 year old low or mid range camera is worth nothing when doing even basic indie stuff here in Finland, nobody wants it because it is not up to todays image quality requirements and it just disturbs everybody to watch the final image :blink:

generally a low or mid level camera (like a dslr) does not even survive that 4 or 5 years without breaking up and when it happens two or 3 years after the purchase, it is probably not worth it to repair the camera anymore, cheaper to buy a similar used one instead for replacement or alternatively update to a newer camera model.

 

I personally have a 5Dmark2 from 2009 which has somehow magically somewhat survived to this day without service or repair parts but it is so old technology that I only use it for stills couple of times a year or when a friend wants to borrow a camera for a short film and I don't want to give something I would need by myself. Or when I need a expendable camera for a situation where there is a considerable risk of breaking the camera or losing it forever for whatever reason, for example when using it with a cheap Chinese underwater bag like this http://www.ebay.com/itm/20M-Underwater-Waterproof-Camera-Case-for-Canon-750D-70D-5D-II-760D-7D-D90-D7200-/192178379385?hash=item2cbeb95a79:g:cEQAAOSwB09YJDvl :lol:

 

Yes of course you can use the old camera for SOME stuff (if it still works, quite often not) but it may not be a good idea and the image quality difference compared to newer gear may be very distracting even if the older gear is only used on few select shots (remember the crappy Gopro shots on The Hobbitt for example? )

 

-------

WHEN THIS BECAME ANOTHER FILM vs. DIGITAL THREAD BTW, there will never be end to these ones I'm afraid :D

[Stephen Perera]

...just to lighten the mood....this looks nicer than any digital camera at least no??? hahaha

[David Mawson]

...just to lighten the mood....this looks nicer than any digital camera at least no??? hahaha

 

Say that often enough and Fuji will make a copy...

 

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/camerapedia/images/6/67/Rst3.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110914150827

 

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=fuji+xt2&safe=off&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjG2KX79-3WAhUF1BoKHfkhAn0Q_AUIDCgD&biw=1267&bih=821

 

..Being one of Fuji's camera designers must be an especially easy life.

Edited October 13, 2017 by David Mawson