Premium Member Dan Goulder Posted October 8, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted October 8, 2008 For people who are saying digital films are "dead" looking or whatever, what about a recent film like David Fincher's Zodiac? I saw that in the theater and thought it was great. The fact that it was acquired digitally did not take away from the quality of the production in any way, IMO. I thought it looked way too contrasty, with sickly-looking flesh tones, and for the most part very unflattering toward most of the actors. A notable exception would be Chloe Sevigny, who's smooth facial features would expectedly be less prone to a contrasty format than one with "craggier" features. Facial lines and creases seem to be more exaggerated by digital acquisition which, due to a more limited dynamic range than film, falls off faster into black. At least at this time, film appears to be a more flattering medium. Ironically, I thought a better looking movie, which was shot in 35mm a year before "Zodiac" , was "The Zodiac Killer". (Of course your opinion, mine, and everyone else's is purely subjective.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd Anderson Posted October 8, 2008 Author Share Posted October 8, 2008 Hey Tom, I saw Zodiac in the theater and on Blu-ray... For the theater, I was a bit puzzled as to why Fincher would shoot a 70's period film with digital acquisition, since it kind of goes against the aesthetics of that period. But I gathered that Fincher would rather have that 'total control', meaning he could see the dallies that day and see what was happening 'now', as so he could make the best decision as if he got what he needed before he moved on... so I think that was the directors decision based on the control he needed, versus say, perhaps the right aesthetics... But having said that, I absolutely loved some of the shots in that film. I watched it recently again on Blu-ray, and I thought the scene where the couple are in the straw field by the lake (where they eventually get stabbed) is nothing short of stunning, and one of the most cinematicly memorable moments of that year for me... My biggest complaint with that film having been shot digitally, is that the fleshtones never seem to look correct, or natural. As I think David Mullen has mentioned on this board before, the fleshtones in digital can tend to take on a solid 'band-aid' color. That is what is always the toughest sell for me. In fact, I had to go back and watch that scene I just mentioned in Zodiac to see how they got around that, since the rest of the film it was so noticeable to me... and if you look at that scene, they are brilliantly using the reflections, shadows, and de-focused elements of the straws in the field to break up the fleshtones on the faces...totally worked I think digital is a godsend for certain productions that can take advantage of what that acquisition format has to offer... my point is that we shouldn't be continued into this rapid?almost forceable?path of digital being the only choice because of cost and other market pressures. If we do, art down the road is going to suffer for it. Again, not all art. But the art where as digital is not the right fit... It is still about the story, right? Don't take a side: only film, or only digital, and what have you... just use what you feel works for you and the story... Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Lowe Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Todd, thanks for your thoughtful response. I am not astute enough, frankly, to spot these fleshtone variations. I thought Zodiac was a great film, and only after I had seen it did I learn it was digitally acquired, in AC. To me, digital vs 35mm is no longer an issue. It just comes down to the movie now. People might be pissed off that digital is on the rise and chemical 35 will eventually fall, but 35mm still photography tells us that the images we will see will still be awesome. Why fight it? Why not embrace it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Mehr Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 That's kind of like asking a sculptor to embrace 3D Studio Max..... ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russell Scott Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 That's kind of like asking a sculptor to embrace 3D Studio Max..... ;) this is perhaps a great analogy. Clay was the first "creature special effects tool", digital came along and it definitely wasn't better - look at pixars first shorts cute, technically amazing for the time, but pretty crap; claymation was definitely better. The medium matured and now the medium has matured so much that much claymation is done digitally! The lessons of sculpting have been applied digitally, with mudbox and force feedback digital sculpting tools (and with 3d printing). Sculpting still has a place, its shifted, but its still highly relevant. But from a movie art perspective these tools have been a massive boon. Look at Craig Mullins or Feng Zhu or Dylan cole (etcetc) these guys have defined the very look of some films and they are 'merely' photoshop artists. notwithstanding the romance of dealing with film, the digital medium will only get better. Complaining about flesh tones seems premature when comparing it to a medium that has been established for decades (and when it first went colour, the fleshtones were terrible too!) Film will be around for a while yet, but when digital is ready, its quality will surpass that of film (a CCD can capture both more light and more colour than film can so theoretically, once the CCDs & electronics are advanced enough, you can have a "make it look like this filmstock" button. I should note too that right now, I generally dislike the look of most digital films, but am obviously not so pessimistic about its future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Dan Goulder Posted October 9, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted October 9, 2008 Why fight it? Why not embrace it? Why embrace it before it's worth embracing? Why do you insist on now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Mehr Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Well, those who like and enjoy film will continue to use that medium until it is really gone. There's something to be said that in the age of portable HD cameras that you can still buy Super8mm. In the end, it's not the technology that matters, it's what you do with it. I personally love the work of Nuri Bilge Ceylan, and I think he's shown the artistic potential of HD. I would imagine he enjoys the intimacy the technology affords. I would too, but then again I would miss working with film. It should be clear that this is a subjective topic, and I don't really think the pro-film posters are trying to persuade the digital lovers to go back to film. We are simply stating our preference. Being a gamer, I know what it's like to fall in love with technology, and I know when such a love gets out of hand... With film, you're working on a medium that's been in use for decades. There's something to say for that. Most of us will have to learn how to use digital, how to calibrate them, how to expose for them, what their quirks are, etc. I guess you can call this "embracing." But, it's just not the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Lowe Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 That's kind of like asking a sculptor to embrace 3D Studio Max..... ;) ha! hardly. there really is very little difference in shooting digital vs film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Paul Bruening Posted October 9, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted October 9, 2008 Hey Tom, We know you like digital. Certainly, it is going to push out film. We know this, as well. For some of us, this fact is a little painful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Everyone keeps talking about "choices". I am all for digital projection, 2K projection, for student films. This is a Godsend. But what "choice" is there when it comes in the form of a mandate from the big three theatre chains. They've essentially made the decision to bankrupt Kodak for us, and they CAN afford prints. They can afford to spend $100 million marketing a $10 million feature, they can't spend a couple million on release printing? Again, it is not a choice when the conversion is mandatory to even stay in business because the studios won't be offering release prints. What a disgusting display of the value of the bottom line over the quality of the visual media available to us in the theatre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Hunter Hampton Posted October 9, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted October 9, 2008 I don't know how this is a deal with the devil. The digitally projected films I have seen look fantastic. You can always add a digital hair in the projector gate or some unsteadiness in the frame... :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd Anderson Posted October 9, 2008 Author Share Posted October 9, 2008 Karl, You exactly hit upon two of the main points I was trying to make, albeit, with about one twentieth of the words! Thank you. And Tom, I honestly think that I am in a minority group that pays attentions to things like the subtle variations in fleshtones that film captures. And that is honestly another reason why digital (and I agree with you here) will eventually take over, that is, because most people won't see such things. ... even if I do think that a wider public audience "unconsciously" does sense such variations... I just think they can't always put their fingers on what is different... And admittedly, I can certainly romanticize the whole idea of things like texture, fleshtones in portraiture, craftsmanship long lost, etc... but I'm also the person that buys a vintage 1930's Spanish home, and lives in it with all its faults, as so I can marvel at things like lath and plaster, coved ceilings, all the irregularities and patina of the hard wood floors and roof... the old windows that are a bitch to restore and are not efficient at all, but look wonderful.... I'm just not that person that is going down to Home Depot to pick up all the 'new' materials that sometimes may be better from an engineering stand point, but certainly not from an aesthetic stand point... ...CCD's may eventually be better at capturing more light and more color than film, but I still think electronic imaging will always be a different processes for capturing light than the way film randomly does with all its 'sensors'. So, you can spray more stucco on the side of a building more quickly and efficiently today with all these engineering marvels, but it is the irregularities of applying that same stucco by hand that gives those old walls their souls... So as to embracing it, sure, I totally embrace digital for certain applications?I think it can be great! I honestly do. And it will certainly get even better as it matures. But it will still be different. And so as to 'give in' and not embrace film for all those other projects that require the film aesthetic, that would be like telling me to embrace living in a track home in the middle of Paris because the city planners got together and decided to tear down all the old buildings because they were not worth the extra expense. Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Taylor Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 I don't know how this is a deal with the devil. The digitally projected films I have seen look fantastic. You can always add a digital hair in the projector gate or some unsteadiness in the frame... :rolleyes: Hi, I've been making a point to avoid digitally projected films due to the fact that it looks like big screen tv. I don't feel like I'm watching a film in a theater. I feel like I'm at a rich friends house sitting on his sofa watching disposable entertainment on his super duper, high definition, will be in the trash in five years, big screen television. Something I find amazing is how people who are pro digital seem to point out things like hairs in the gate, or grain, or unsteadiness. Have these people never enjoyed a single film in their entire lives until digital came around? "Dammit! I see a hair! This film is ruined for me! Look at those tiny little dots swimming around! How distracting!" I can't imagine being bother by these things. Never in my entire life has a film been ruined for me because of a stupid hair, or some grain, or unsteadiness. I'm assuming these same people loathe silent films, since they can't hear anything? My biggest issue with digital is that it's being forced on everyone. What is this "choice" that everyone's talking about? Sure, right NOW I have a choice. What about in ten years? Some people say things like digital being best suited for certain stories, and film working for other stories. What happens to those stories that work best with film in ten years when we may no longer have the choice to shoot on the film medium? This entire topic is so frustrating to me. I'm seeing a medium that I love slowly being taken away from me, while a number of people are in fact cheering on its death, and there's nothing I can do about it. Jay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Lowe Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Something I find amazing is how people who are pro digital seem to point out things like hairs in the gate, or grain, or unsteadiness. Have these people never enjoyed a single film in their entire lives until digital came around? Jay, people are simply pointing out that film is not without flaws, too. Digital vs film has been beaten into the ground as a topic, but what would you say to a 5K camera with more dynamic range than film that would shoot at ISO 6400 with almost no noise, for example? You could then shoot scenes that would basically be impossible to shoot on chemical film. Digital has advantages, just as it has downsides. Chemical film dates back to the American Civil War. Not last century, but two centuries ago. It is a testament to film that is has taken this long to see digital technology begin to seriously replace it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Taylor Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Jay, people are simply pointing out that film is not without flaws, too. Digital vs film has been beaten into the ground as a topic, but what would you say to a 5K camera with more dynamic range than film that would shoot at ISO 6400 with almost no noise, for example? You could then shoot scenes that would basically be impossible to shoot on chemical film. Digital has advantages, just as it has downsides. Chemical film dates back to the American Civil War. Not last century, but two centuries ago. It is a testament to film that is has taken this long to see digital technology begin to seriously replace it. Hey Tom, I get the impression people think digital artifacts are more acceptable then film artifacts. I personally feel that digital artifacts are way more intrusive. What would I say about a 5K camera? Look, no matter how many K resolution some digital camera has, no matter how much latitude, etc? It will look digital. It will look electronic. I don't enjoy the aesthetic of the digital medium. I have every right to feel this way, and I should have every right to shoot on the medium of my choice. But that choice is slowly being taken away from me. What would you say if suddenly all these digital camera manufacturers called it quits? What if they all got together and decided, "Digital's no good. Film's the way to go"? All the people who swear by digital would be completely bummed out! Imagine how the film medium buffs are feeling these days. Look what happened to Polaroid. Is digital really a replacement for shooting polaroids? No, it's not. It's not the same thing at all. But what choice do you have now? Thankfully Fuji still makes instant film, but for how much longer? I'm not suggesting that digital should go away. I just don't understand why it has to be one or the other. Why shouldn't an artist be allowed to choose their medium? Jay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Lowe Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Look, no matter how many K resolution some digital camera has, no matter how much latitude, etc? It will look digital. It will look electronic. I don't enjoy the aesthetic of the digital medium. This is what I don't understand. You say that digital looks bad. How can you even tell the difference? Tell me which of these shots below was taken on a DSLR and which was taken on a Canon 35mm film still camera? Do you think you can tell? Would you bet a paycheck on your answer? And frankly, does it even matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milo Sekulovich Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 That's not really a fair comparison and not the best way to judge as those pictures are small, and at that point comparing even something like very good MiniDV and film can blur. But magnify it and make it the size of a computer monitor at least and there's a world of difference....make it the size of a TV or a theater screen and then digital's weaknesses reveals itself. The other thing is to add motion. Motion creates other issues to deal with and so you just can't use a still image that small as a realistic comparison. Film is still king. 90% of all major features are still being shot on film. And Arriflex just had RECORD sales of their motion picture cameras. Milo Sekulovch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Lowe Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 That's not really a fair comparison and not the best way to judge as those pictures are small, and at thatpoint comparing even something like very good MiniDV and film can blur. But magnify it and make it the size of a computer monitor at least and there's a world of difference....make it the size of a TV or a theater screen and then digital's weaknesses reveals itself. The other thing is to add motion. Motion creates other issues to deal with and so you just can't use a still image that small as a realistic comparison. Film is still king. 90% of all major features are still being shot on film. And Arriflex just had RECORD sales of their motion picture cameras. Milo Sekulovch Film is NOT king in the stills world, not by a mile. In fact, it was just learned this week that Canon has dropped all but ONE chemical film camera from their EOS line.... http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controll...fcategoryid=111 Digital is king when it comes to stills. And honestly, what would it matter if I posted 4K versions of those two photographs above? Would that make any difference? How would it make any difference? If anything, the grain would really stand out more for the film shot and the digital shot would look much more pristine. This argument that you cannot make beautiful images on digital is a farce, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Taylor Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Film is NOT king in the stills world, not by a mile. In fact, it was just learned this week that Canon has dropped all but ONE chemical film camera from their EOS line.... http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controll...fcategoryid=111 Digital is king when it comes to stills. And honestly, what would it matter if I posted 4K versions of those two photographs above? Would that make any difference? How would it make any difference? If anything, the grain would really stand out more for the film shot and the digital shot would look much more pristine. This argument that you cannot make beautiful images on digital is a farce, IMO. Hey Tom, You RED heads seems to think 4K makes a HUGE difference. ;) I'm not really sure what more there is to say. I love film, and you seem to think I'm wrong for loving it. Honestly, I don't even have the energy to address all the things I disagree with you about. So I'll simply say that I disagree. :) Jay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd Anderson Posted October 10, 2008 Author Share Posted October 10, 2008 "I'm not suggesting that digital should go away. I just don't understand why it has to be one or the other. Why shouldn't an artist be allowed to choose their medium?" Jay, Exactly! Thanks, Man..... Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Taylor Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Hey Todd, I've been trying to think of an analogy to explain this whole thing. What if when photography first started out, they stopped selling paint, thereby forcing everyone into photography? Or suppose that all the brush makers decided they were only going to make pointed round brushes now. Sure, you could still paint a picture, but you'd be missing out on what can be achieved with other brushes. I guess it's something like that? Jay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Lowe Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Jay, I notice you did not want to take a crack at answering which was shot digital, and which on film? ;) Don't get me wrong. I love film. Always have, always will. But I also love digital technology. I don't see how they are mutually exclusive. I really, truly don't understand people who say they cannot create beautiful, world-class images digitally. How come still photogs are able to do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topher Ryan Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Alright, I'm just gonna boldly stumble in here and say that the fisherman was shot on film and the statue originated digitally. Is it a trick question? Am I wrong? I don't mind proving someone's point if I'm wrong, but those clouds look like a dead giveaway for DSLR work. Good Day gentlemen. Answer please... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Hunter Hampton Posted October 10, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted October 10, 2008 For the cost stand point alone, its much more budget friendly to distribute data to theaters rather than film. Other than that, I think you could trick anyone into believing they were seeing an analog film projection, when it was in fact a digital projection. I don't see what the problem with digital projection is, maybe some of you have seen a poor digital screening with a low resolution and the bulb at half power or something, but the new 2K/4K digital projectors look very very nice, If no one told me I was watching a digital projection, I wouldn't have even thought about it. I think this is just a mental barrier that we need to get over- just because your seeing a film projected digitally doesn't change the fact that you are watching a film.:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Lowe Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Both were digital. This was taken on a $30,000 Hasselblad H3D digital medium-format camera by one of the best professional outdoor photographers in the world.... And the "film" shot was taken on a cheapy prosumer Nikon D200 DSLR by a retired Grandma on flickr.... The point is: The camera is not the issue anymore. Digital is close enough to film now that it all comes down to the talent and the shot. Saying that beautiful images cannot be acquired digitally is silly to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now