Kris Bird

Matthew, you are right of course, and my pro photographer friends will very happily point this out to me whenever I make digital/analogue comparisons... (even the ones who have substituted their 35mm work for digital, resorting to film only for higher end medium format commercial work). But, by this logic, perhaps you will agree that although medium format and above far exceed current digital technologies, meeting the resolution, contrast and dynamic range of 35mm (in terms of film AND video) is actually not such a high bar, and now becoming a real possibility for digital? p.s., I am of the opinion that it will take a couple of generations for 4K+ video cameras to iron out the quirks and poorly-understood subtleties that contribute to the aesthetics that make film so appealing, and give digital the reputation of being soulless .. there is no doubt that the 'quality' of an image is more than just the raw resolution and dynamic range- it will be interesting to see whether people can obtain the warmth and soul we associate with "film" through the means of competent (or advanced) grading of digitally aquired video... Anyone predicting the death of film are clearly mis-informed, but there's no denying that these are interesting times, and digital is coming of age!

Another additional point-- you talk about Vinyl as being vastly superior for playback .... how is this a useful comparison? If analogue audio was still superior, then surely recording studios would use exclusively the best available (i.e. fully analogue systems), and then consumers would be in two classes-- those who care about quality would listen on vinyl, while the masses would listen on cheap digital systems. This obviously isnt the case. Recording studios use very digital systems, almost exclusively so. There are lots of interesting systems, such as tube or hybrid pre-amps, which provide a gorgeous warmth to vocals, but they are used as small "special purpose" units, of course ... but recording, mixing and mastering mediums are very digital. Lots of people love their analogue synths, etc. and "sample" them into their digital workflows. For the past half a decade there has also been a rise in VST/etc plugins which are digital *simulations* of analogue equipment! It has become possible to fully emulate every physical detail of certain analogue pieces of equipment, which is a very interesting thing indeed. Perhaps this will give some insights as to where digital cinema could go over the next decades. In terms of playback, the majority of high-end systems audiophile systems are CD-based. Lots like their vinyl systems. It's a matter of choice, as it should be! Once digital video matures, I've no doubt that there will be lots of interesting preferences in different circumstances and for different tastes... But the time of "digital" being a dirty word will pass! Besides, what modern films are taken from the camera to the screen without ever being digital?

Karl, while I actually agree with a lot of what you say, I would hope that you'd agree that not all of your points are like-for-like comparisons. My specific comments:- 1. It's certainly true that a lot of wedding and commercial photographers still shoot film, while others will tell you how they "went digital because it's much cheaper/faster and their clients can't tell the difference". BUT, in my experience here in the UK, it is medium format that serious photographers fall back to for their high end work, not 35mm. 35mm has been very largely replaced by digital (especially the astonishing Canon 1Ds and similar cameras), while medium format and other larger formats still hold their own for high end work. My point is simply this-- in the still camera world, 35mm has met its match with the current top-end cameras. 2. As a self-proclaimed audiophile, I'll say this-- Vinyl is a far more complicated issue than you make it sound! It is of course impossible to do a true like-for-like comparison of a recording, as the sources are so fundamentally different, and the material itself is mastered very differently for each medium (chiefly the butchering of the dynamic range to squeeze it onto the vinyl). CD systems took a long time to come of age, and suffered a lot of very justified criticism for the first decade or so. Vinyl has benefited from a resurgence largely because it's "cool", it's tactile, it's retro ... not because it's superior! There are many many dozens of online resources (and sound-designer's blogs) which will describe in detail why vinyl is inferior to CDs (and higher bitdepth/samplerate formats), and why CDs have suffered from unfair flack these past years (i.e. the jitter problem, a market flooded with poor DACs and clocks, the 'compression' addiction butchering commercial CD's dynamic range, and so on). Ultimately, there is no voodoo- digital audio is technically far superior (and has been for a while now), but had a lot of technical issues (which manifested themselves as aesthetic inadequacies) to overcome. Digital photography is the same, but several decades behind. It certainly hasn't surpassed photochemical photography, but 35mm has met its match for sure. I don't think we'll see medium-format sized digital sensors which can challenge it's raw resolution and dynamic range anytime soon! Motion Picture photography is an interesting one, because it's raw resolution and dynamic range is of course not far from 35mm still photography. In terms of raw technical specs, it will be matched by digital video in the near future, that is for certain. I imagine that digital video will initially suffer from similar glitchery as audio-cds did, perhaps in the form of aliasing, and other various subtle phenomena that have give sub-conscious clues that it is digital ... but they will be overcome in time. As I said, there is no voodoo .. this is evidenced by the fact that 35mm footage scanned at 2/4K, graded and re-printed retained it's "Film Warmth"! If there was true voodoo, then surely it would be neutered by any digital process? In terms of raw resolution and dynamic range, film is soon to be matched by digital. In terms of capturing the true romance and "warmth" of film, we will soon find out whether the first 4K cameras will offer us this. Perhaps skilful colour grading will give us this, or perhaps we'll have to wait until the 2nd or 3rd generations of 4K cameras before we truly understand (and overcome) the sub-conscious glitchery and inadequacies that contribute to this inexpressible ?soullessness? that so many predict. Once this is understood and overcome, then ?digital? in films will no longer be a dirty word ? much the same as ?digital? in the audio / music / sound-engineering industries is no longer a dirty word!