FILM vs DIGITAL

[Gregg MacPherson]

 

Actually the 'photon' idea has been around a lot longer than that. Newton proposed the idea of 'corpuscle',

 

Didn't Newton have a particle model for light. The photon idea I thought came later and is a sort of dualistic particle/wave model where theorists use whichever is convenient. I googled on origins of the word and sometime after the work by Plank and Einstein very early in the 20th century CN Lewis coined the term "photon" in 1926 and it stuck.

 

I did briefly try reading Newton's Principia once. It read like a philosophy text, not reminding me of the classical mechanics that everyone learns.

 

Can you check if there is a syntax error in your second paragraph. I don't want to missunderstand it.

 

Functional laws of nature (physics) exist within boundaries. The mechanistic, action/reaction universe that's commonly identified with Newton can't explain much once the object is too fast or too small. Any phenomena existing outside those Newtonian boundaries might be experienced as magic or require some similar explanation. Untill someone developes an understanding of the functional laws that exist within the new, expanded boundaries.

[Philip Kral]

For once I'm kind of glad a board went off topic. :)

 

.... I was about to think I was going to have to put my own 2 cents in.....

[John E Clark]

 

Didn't Newton have a particle model for light.

 

Yes, he called it 'corpuscle'. Photons are a modernized form of the concept of 'light as particle'.

 

As for the second paragraph.... It would seem that some think that the result of light impinging on silver halide does 'more' than just have a physical effect, and that effect creates some 'soul', or something more that a physical phenomenon that humans take advantage of for some purpose.

 

It is the human observer that applies any 'soul' attribute to an image, not the image having some 'soul' of which the human some how 'senses'.

[Tim Tyler]

There have been numerous Film vs Video threads on Cinematography.com since 1998 when the forum opened. I encourage new members to read through some of the older discussions to see how they evolved before being halted.

 

Today it's more appropriate to have a Film and Video discussion since video technologies have matured and proven themselves as viable, attractive capture and presentation medium alternatives.

 

It's okay to prefer film. It's okay to prefer video. It's okay to change your mind as often as you want.

 

As long as the discussion here remains respectful it will remain open.

[Gregg MacPherson]

 

...he called it 'corpuscle'. Photons are a modernized form of the concept of 'light as particle'.

 

 

 

Newton's corpuscle is a photon? That's a stretch, but I understand what you think.

 

Physical? What some call physical is crude material matter, and the functional laws of physics that don't violate the boundaries of Newtonian mechanics. So what proof is required that functional physical laws exist beyond those boundaries. Or at least that some principals external to those boundaries are able to leave evidence within those boundaries. The A bomb was a good historical example (I thought).

 

We don't need to overtly invoke with words like "life", "soul" or the big G word in order to enter the zone of momentarily inexplicable physical phenomena.

 

I'm just thinking that all interactions between objects (an object could be anything), involves a transference of information. When we shake hands, we may experience that as touch. Look harder, and there are fields close to the atoms that keep us apart. But how can these fields not be interacting? And there are other fields active in that event. I think that if fields are interacting, then information is transferred.

 

So, a photon arriving at a collection of atoms on an actor's skin. John E Clark keeps reminding us that Newton thought this photon was just a particle, but later history says it's a wave/particle as required. So this "wave packet" arrives at a tiny speck on the actors skin. I'm suggesting that rather than fly happily through the vast spaces between the atoms on that speck, it has an interaction with their proximate fields, then bounces off towards the cinematographers eye/emulsion, depending on the position of the mirror.

 

So what exactly happened in that interaction?

 

Historically, cinematographers were spoiled, this thing happened whether they sensed it or not, whether they disbelieved it, allowed it or not. Now...? We have people calling themselves cinematographers who disbelieve it, dissalow it, prefer that we were not discussing it. So I move that such folk re-name themselves digitographers. Hence DD (director of digitography).

 

(Edit: added a return stroke)

Edited September 18, 2014 by Gregg MacPherson

[John E Clark]

So I move that such folk re-name themselves digitographers. Hence DD (director of digitography).

 

Well, unfortunately that could still lead to some confusion.

 

Don't know if there is any grain involved... but, probably is not organic.

 

 

[John E Clark]

There have been numerous Film vs Video threads on Cinematography.com since 1998 when the forum opened. I encourage new members to read through some of the older discussions to see how they evolved before being halted.

 

Today it's more appropriate to have a Film and Video discussion since video technologies have matured and proven themselves as viable, attractive capture and presentation medium alternatives.

 

It's okay to prefer film. It's okay to prefer video. It's okay to change your mind as often as you want.

 

As long as the discussion here remains respectful it will remain open.

 

I prefer to use the term Digital Film rather than video.

 

'video' for me is an imaging system that use such signal specifications as RS-170/170a, or color spaces such as Rec 601 or a mild up grade of 709. Cameras used for 'video' tend to maintain the previous analog conventions such as 'db gain' rather than ISO values, many of the 'low end' versions have fixed lenses, etc. at higher costs per unit that removable lens DSLR with 'moving picture capability'.

 

I do use an IRE display these days, but I definitely want to make sure my data for an 8 bit device ranges 0-255 and not 16-235 per 'video/broadcast' specs. And I really never worry about 7.5 IRE setup... ever...

[Gregg MacPherson]

 

Well, unfortunately that could still lead to some confusion.

 

 

Gets even funier if one thinks it's a "selfie". Or are you already claiming that joke?

[Younes Boudiaf]

I am glad to see my controversial post turns to a huge debate that somehow taught us some new things whether in Cinematography or even Physics, however I think most of you misunderstood me, or let's say it was me who was not clear enough to express my point as I am not a native speaker maybe my language was not really clear,

 

FILM or Video/ Digital or Film vs Digital or Film and Digital, I didn't mean to compare the technical specs between Film camera and Digital Camera or Film and a Digital sensor !or Dynamic range, look, texture, grains, sharpness, workflow,... what I really meant is how the medium is evolving, and the acceptance of the experts (Cinematographer/Directors, Producers) as taste makers to use new technologies to move on and help storytelling to evolve, this on one side, on the other side how some of the Directors and Cinematographers refuse to use a new Medium (Digital) and stick to the Film, some of them refuse to use the Digital for its limitations but Some because they Love the look of the Film and they want it to stay as a choice some of them looking forward maybe for evolving it some of them still make fun of Digital !

 

So, I believe that its both Artists (Cinematographers, Directors,...) and Scientists, are the one who can develop tools for storytelling, but I am still confused why would a great Cinematographer critic the sharpness that a lens constructor spend time and money and technology to enhance it ! why would a great Cinematographer critic a camera that allow him to use a way less light and power to get almost the same look ( the guy hated the fact he is using less light ! I am not comparing the looks here), why would a great Cinematographer insist on grainy look !! ( which I consider as a Limitation), ........

 

So there is a lot of cinematographer who are not welcoming Digital or let's say a new Medium that is a bit different than what they used to use to tell stories.

 

so in this period maybe the end of transition period from old medium to another, how Filmmakers ( Directors, Cinematographers, Producers,..) can help in this evolution or development of the Medium (Film, Digital, or anything better) for better quality and better methods to tell stories?

 

Regards

[Chris D Walker]

This is an anecdotal story but bear with me. I recently bought a Rank Aldis rangefinder camera for £15 on eBay. It's 50+ years old and is fully manual so I used my light meter for exposure. I took it for a day out on a boat up river and the woods nearby my home loaded with Fuji Superia 400 (I also had Pentax 110 sub-miniature camera loaded with Lomography film). I get the film developed and had 9x6 prints made. I had to say "Holy cow." I own several digital cameras and have never been as enthused about my shots as I have looking at these prints. I'll be shooting rolls of Lomography-modified 5213 200T next week, too.

 

Since shooting stills film again I've been thinking about what makes celluloid distinctive from digital photography, whether for stills or filmmaking. Most of it is subjective so I'd love for others to chime in. The first distinction is how light from a scene and lens is captured by the medium; film captures light with a logarithmic response whereas digital uses a high-bitrate linear response chip with an applied gamma to attain its initial image. A given film stock has an innate look or aesthetic that cannot be duplicated by software that will extrapolate and interpret an image based on a manufacturer's specifications.

 

I also think a film negative's subtractive colour process versus a sensors' additive colour process plays some role as to how a digital image can have 'off' skintones and inaccurate reproduction of certain hues. Also note that the cyan layer in a negative is at the bottom; perhaps there is a micro-diffusion happening in the red-sensitive layer that compliments people's skin?

 

I am not 100% pro film. Digital cameras do have several advantages over film stocks such as sensitivity and resolution (except for 65mm 5-perf and IMAX) but many cinematographers care more about the latitude and colour fidelity that film can provide among a host of other considerations I won't get into.

 

Don't you think it's fantastic that a 50-year old camera can still be put to use and provide excellent prints? How many of us are using digital cameras or even phones today that are over five years old?

Edited September 18, 2014 by Chris D Walker

[John E Clark]

...but I am still confused why would a great Cinematographer critic the sharpness that a lens constructor spend time and money and technology to enhance it ! why would a great Cinematographer critic a camera that allow him to use a way less light and power to get almost the same look ( the guy hated the fact he is using less light ! I am not comparing the looks here), why would a great Cinematographer insist on grainy look !! ( which I consider as a Limitation), ........

 

 

 

What I have seen is 'most' cinematographers that one can name, do 2 things. 1) develop a style that some set of directors feel will 'tell' their film story visually. 2) use a variety of methods to effect that visual story telling.

 

'grain' aside... why would some one use 'smoke' to the point were most of the crew needs lung protection, and the actors need a oxygen 'boost' after performance (ok a little extreme...), but the point is, it had better be for 'the story'.

 

Why would someone take the coating off a modern lens... if not to get a specific look... in the case of "Saving Private Ryan"(1998)... it was for that period look. And there were shutter spead manipulations also, as I recall.

 

Digital film has allowed far more people to become in visual story telling. Unlike almost all 8mm film, or even much 16mm, of the olden days, I think people have proved that if one takes care in production, one can create films that are watchable and tell stories, which is the point of 'filmmaking' in my book. The fact that it has allowed a gazillion happy shooters to upload their '8mm film/35mm travel slides', these ancient methods to bore one's friends and neighbors with, to the world, is immaterial.

 

A woman from a local filmmaking group is putting together a promo for her book idea. She would never have done this, were it not for the Digital Revolution. I think that is a 'benefit'.

 

One consequence is the 'ease' of entry. For Film there was the cost of stock + processing, and where to show one's work... even if one had bought the Bolex watchworks 16mm camera... for $300 or so in 1970...

 

But I do see cinematographers who one can name, at least those who are inclined to teach, doing general seminars. Or some have websites and do interact with people via their fora. In the olden days, I don't recall cinematographers doing that ever, with the exception of presentations at say USC in LA... ok... friends of mine use to go over to Ed Wood's house and talk to him about making movies... I don't know if it was to learn anything, or just find out about this guy who made some of the 'worst' films that any one could imagine, yet get some sort of cult following... but I digress...

Edited September 18, 2014 by John E Clark

[David Mullen ASC]

Cinematographers are also artists, and artists make choices that are emotional, unscientific, personal, and idiosyncratic, even illogical... As long as the results are what they intended, then I wouldn't get so obsessed by some of their odd opinions.

 

As far as sharpness goes, there are many reasons why a softer image quality is desired -- and there are dozens of ways to achieve a softer look, one approach isn't necessarily more valid than another, some DP's choose to use the sharpest lenses and then soften the image with filters, others use softer lenses with no filters, etc.

[Kenny N Suleimanagich]

That is well said, David. In the end, what a cinematographer should want/have more than anything is the ability to make that choice. We cannot speculate on the end of celluloid, but we can be absolutely certain that its disappearance would negatively impact the craft of cinematography - just like how the digital revolution has, in many ways, had a positive impact on it.

[David Mullen ASC]

"Negative" impact is a bit subjective even if I agree to some extant... I feel that the switch from 3-strip Technicolor to Eastmancolor negative had a negative impact, at least in terms of color, but that switch in the early 1950's allowed the rise of larger formats like Cinerama, VistaVision, 65mm Todd-AO, and ultimately IMAX, which was a positive, and though we never recreated the color rendition of 3-strip perfectly (just as we may never perfectly recreate Kodachrome), color negative improved decade by decade and provided many award-winning images, and so will be the case with digital.

[Younes Boudiaf]

color negative improved decade by decade and provided many award-winning images, and so will be the case with digital.

 

Thanks David, you Sum it up !

[George Ebersole]

I am glad to see my controversial post turns to a huge debate that somehow taught us some new things whether in Cinematography or even Physics, however I think most of you misunderstood me, or let's say it was me who was not clear enough to express my point as I am not a native speaker maybe my language was not really clear,

 

FILM or Video/ Digital or Film vs Digital or Film and Digital, I didn't mean to compare the technical specs between Film camera and Digital Camera or Film and a Digital sensor !or Dynamic range, look, texture, grains, sharpness, workflow,... what I really meant is how the medium is evolving, and the acceptance of the experts (Cinematographer/Directors, Producers) as taste makers to use new technologies to move on and help storytelling to evolve, this on one side, on the other side how some of the Directors and Cinematographers refuse to use a new Medium (Digital) and stick to the Film, some of them refuse to use the Digital for its limitations but Some because they Love the look of the Film and they want it to stay as a choice some of them looking forward maybe for evolving it some of them still make fun of Digital !

 

So, I believe that its both Artists (Cinematographers, Directors,...) and Scientists, are the one who can develop tools for storytelling, but I am still confused why would a great Cinematographer critic the sharpness that a lens constructor spend time and money and technology to enhance it ! why would a great Cinematographer critic a camera that allow him to use a way less light and power to get almost the same look ( the guy hated the fact he is using less light ! I am not comparing the looks here), why would a great Cinematographer insist on grainy look !! ( which I consider as a Limitation), ........

 

So there is a lot of cinematographer who are not welcoming Digital or let's say a new Medium that is a bit different than what they used to use to tell stories.

 

so in this period maybe the end of transition period from old medium to another, how Filmmakers ( Directors, Cinematographers, Producers,..) can help in this evolution or development of the Medium (Film, Digital, or anything better) for better quality and better methods to tell stories?

 

Regards

 

As I stated in my previous post it comes down to what you think will benefit the project. If your end product is a feature, and a certain look is believed to enhance the visual quality, then you go with whatever medium steers you in that direction. As a rough example, "The Artist" (2011) was shot mostly in black and white (except for a few scenes) to enhance the flavor of the period which the film depicts (1920s silent era).

 

Where that's not a film verse digital decision (though it could have been I suppose) it was a decision made based on what the creative team thought would best enhance the appeal of the movie to the audience, and hopefully make a good product that audience members would recommend to other potential viewers.

 

With the exception of lens flare and perhaps skin tone and some other colors, digital technology appears to have captured much of what the molecular photochemical process for film does. I mention lens flare and skin tone because chips organize light differently. You get these massive vertical "light bars" (I don't know what jargon is used these days) stemming from hot spots verse a washout with some flares travelling across the lens.

 

Old lens flare = hexagons, hots posts, arced light spillage.

New lens flare = hot spot with vertical light bars.

 

Skin tone is another factor. In the past I heard many DPs who were also Videographers bitch about how digital cameras couldn't capture skin tone right. There is a soft quality generated by both pigmentation and hairs that creates a color blend that, at one time, digital cameras had a hard time processing. Things seemed to have improved, but I still notice a harsh color on digital footage for skin verse tube technology.

 

Getting back to film, chip technology, in my opinion, will catch-up and possibly surpass photochemical technology. But then you have to ask yourself how much detail you want your final product to have. And again it becomes a decision based on what you think will best accentuate your final product.

 

Again, if you're shooting commercial footage (industrial, commercial, feature film), then it's a matter of what best garnishes the image for audience appeal in terms of story, genre, and general theme.

 

If it's an indy film, feature or short, then it's all about artistic bent to appease ego or the director's vision. I can't really imagine a studio letting a director and/or DP have complete and total final say on how a film looks without good reason. But then that's getting into director-producer battlegrounds of money-verse-"art" of the product.

[George Ebersole]

"Negative" impact is a bit subjective even if I agree to some extant... I feel that the switch from 3-strip Technicolor to Eastmancolor negative had a negative impact, at least in terms of color, but that switch in the early 1950's allowed the rise of larger formats like Cinerama, VistaVision, 65mm Todd-AO, and ultimately IMAX, which was a positive, and though we never recreated the color rendition of 3-strip perfectly (just as we may never perfectly recreate Kodachrome), color negative improved decade by decade and provided many award-winning images, and so will be the case with digital.

 

David; I think those formats were a response to television, which was seen as a potential competitor to the theater experience (keeping potential ticket buyers at home instead of spending money at the movie houses). Even so, I have to say that when I view older films I'm glad someone came up with new technology because stuff like Wizard of Oz or Meet Me in St. Louis and others hold up a hell of a lot better than black and white stuff shot at the time.

 

TODDAO was developed to try and cut down on the bulk of the three stripe process, or so I'm trying to recall my history of film classes. I think Michael Todd didn't agree with the massive three lens cameras that were used for the three stripe process. Whether he had some hard technical data to show that there was image distortion or something, I can't recall.

[David Mullen ASC]

You're missing my point, which was that color negative technology made larger format cameras shooting color possible. The fact that television was a motivating factor for widescreen is not relevant to my point that the loss of 3-strip Technicolor made other things possible.

 

You're also confusing your Todd-AO history a bit, Michael Todd created 65mm Todd-AO to compete with the three-lensed, three movement Cinerama process, not 3-strip Technicolor. And truth is that while a single 65mm camera system got rid of a lot of the oddities of the three-panel approach, one thing he could not replicate as well was the 144 degree wide-angle view of the combined images from three 27mm lenses, his single "bug eye" lens, having a similar field of view, created a lot of barrel distortion that Cinerama did not suffer from.

[cole t parzenn]

"Negative" impact is a bit subjective even if I agree to some extant... I feel that the switch from 3-strip Technicolor to Eastmancolor negative had a negative impact, at least in terms of color, but that switch in the early 1950's allowed the rise of larger formats like Cinerama, VistaVision, 65mm Todd-AO, and ultimately IMAX, which was a positive, and though we never recreated the color rendition of 3-strip perfectly (just as we may never perfectly recreate Kodachrome), color negative improved decade by decade and provided many award-winning images, and so will be the case with digital.

 

What made the color rendition of 3-strip special?

[George Ebersole]

You're missing my point, which was that color negative technology made larger format cameras shooting color possible. The fact that television was a motivating factor for widescreen is not relevant to my point that the loss of 3-strip Technicolor made other things possible.

 

You're also confusing your Todd-AO history a bit, Michael Todd created 65mm Todd-AO to compete with the three-lensed, three movement Cinerama process, not 3-strip Technicolor. And truth is that while a single 65mm camera system got rid of a lot of the oddities of the three-panel approach, one thing he could not replicate as well was the 144 degree wide-angle view of the combined images from three 27mm lenses, his single "bug eye" lens, having a similar field of view, created a lot of barrel distortion that Cinerama did not suffer from.

 

But is it a chicken and egg thing? The new formats were developed to compete with television, but the new formats helped get away from a camera that had three spools of film running it. I mean, you're right in that the formats weren't designed to get rid of the three stripe process, but to me it seems like without the studios worrying about television, that the new formats would not have been developed, and what followed was putting to rest the massive three stripe cameras.

 

But I guess my history on Michael Todd's desire for a single camera is hazy. I always thought he wanted to get away from the three strip process because he believed the cameras needed to be more compact and flexible for job use. My mistake if I got that wrong.

[Dan Dorland]

 

What made the color rendition of 3-strip special?

A quick look through screenshots from this late Technicolor movie should answer that question. Simply beyond breathtaking.

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Niagara-Blu-ray/72429/#Screenshots

[John E Clark]

 

What made the color rendition of 3-strip special?

The 3 color 'sandwich' that became the standard color negative is a compromise. In the case of 3 color Technicolor, each strip of film was exposed to only the color of interest(*). Then for 'printing' the process used 'dye transfer', which allowed for 'better color' than the 3 color sandwich compromize, as the dyes can be more saturated, or purer.

 

For the Scorsese film "The Aviator"(2006), Scorsese attempted to give a feel for 2 stripe and 3 stripe processes in the first and second halves of the film.

 

*Unfortunately due to the filtering of the light in to R, G, B... more illumination was required for the then current ASA of the film, and early 3-Color cameras were 'huge'... part of which is 'blimping'... but still huge...

 

as in...

Edited September 19, 2014 by John E Clark

[George Ebersole]

That thing is massive. I can't imagine trying to sound proof it with a blimp.

 

How much information is on a single stripe-frame from a 3-strip camera verse a single frame from an Alexa?

[David Mullen ASC]

But I guess my history on Michael Todd's desire for a single camera is hazy. I always thought he wanted to get away from the three strip process because he believed the cameras needed to be more compact and flexible for job use. My mistake if I got that wrong.

You're conflating 3-strip Technicolor with 3-panel Cinerama. Yes, Michael Todd wanted to create what he called "Cinerama out if one hole" but that has nothing to do with 3-strip Technicolor.

 

Also, the widescreen revolution was not started by the Hollywood studios, it was started by independent filmmaker and inventor Fred Waller with Cinerama -- "This is Cinerama" was the highest grossing film of 1952 and wasn't even made by a Hollywood studio, which is why they sat up and took notice. Now one of their motivations may have been to combat television, though their main thought was "we can make money" as always, but Fred Waller didn't really have television on his mind when he invented Cinerama, it was an extension of his gunnery training flight simulators during WW2, which involved five cameras & projectors showing a huge image on a half-dome screen. Soldiers found the viewing experience so immersive that they told him that movies should be made in the process.

[David Mullen ASC]

That thing is massive. I can't imagine trying to sound proof it with a blimp.

 

How much information is on a single stripe-frame from a 3-strip camera verse a single frame from an Alexa?

That thing is massive in the photo because it is in its blimp.

 

Not sure what you mean by amount of information -- each frame was a standard 4-perf 35mm one, just that there were three b&w negatives to create the color from, but the red information was a bit fuzzy and grainy compared to the blue and green information, and registration in printing the three colors was a limitation on sharpness, which is why some modern digital restorations where each color can be more precisely re-aligned has created sharper versions than was possible before, such as with the restoration of "Singin' in the Rain".