Jump to content

Could Digital Kill Film?


Max Field

Recommended Posts

I never claimed that Early Summer was great simply because it was shot on film. However, I'm sure Ozu would be a proponent of keeping film around. My point was that a "flawed" celluloid experience can feel more alive than a digital one using 3d to heighten its impact. Celluloid is alive perhaps because of its imperfections...much like life itself. People are saying something similar about vinyl as it's making a come back. Certainly, I have seen digital films that are beautiful and digital can be sublime - Life of Pi comes to mind - but humanity will be losing something precious if it loses celluloid as a medium.

 

Humanity will be losing something precious .. ? come on.. we are talking about movies here.. a good movie is a good movie.. a bad one a bad one.. for many reasons.. very low down the list is what its originated on..really you would rather watch a flawed movie shoot on film..because its like life.. thats really going down the rabbit hole.. don't lose any sleep .. humanity will be fine without film as it is without vinyl .. which is not making any sort of come back.. this old chestnut again :)..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree that what a film is created with is low on the list. I consider film an art form, like painting, and feel its medium extremely important. I would assume any serious cinematographer would. I didn't call Early Summer a flawed movie. I said the old print was flawed - had a few scratches etc - but still beautiful. And yes vinyl is making a comeback. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2017/jan/03/record-sales-vinyl-hits-25-year-high-and-outstrips-streaming

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you seem to imply that a movie shot on film is intrinsically "better" than one shoot digitally .. purely on that basis.. regardless of the actual camera work.. let alone the far more important script/acting/direction.. even to the point of worrying about the future of humanity

 

Vinyle is a tiny niche sales market.. way under less than 1% .. its not coming back.. and proves the point.. its the music itself thats important.. not the Analog or Digital capture.. time marches on..its totally immaterial if a "film" is great and considered a great work of art.. which agree they can.. is shot on film or an iPhone.. as Yoda said.. film weave, a great film.. does not make..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said I had seen beautiful films that were digital. Please read my comments thoroughly. I also think Roger Deakins is a great cinematographer. I said a serious cinematographer should consider what medium she/he uses not that a serious cinematographer must always use film. My point has been film is beautiful even with "flaws" and I pray digital does not kill film. I firmly believe we will be losing something important if that happens. I notice a difference between celluloid & digital maybe you don't. I notice a difference and I think keeping celluloid alive is important.

Edited by Raissa Contreras
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But its a bit of a nonsense isnt it.. film can look far more sharp, electronic.. etc .. ..then anything shot digitally.. depending on how its used to power the story/look of the film.. and visa versa .. Deakins has said himself he has seen footage shot on an Alexa.. that he.,. with all his experience and expertise ..had been 100% sure was shot of film..he has embraced the new and learnt how to use it.. yet people here are getting all misty eyed over film .. and how it reflects the flawed nature of the planets.. ,the world and the meaning of life..and other such ethereal musing.. keeping celluloid alive is the least of the worries for a serious DP.. its keeping meaningful films themselves alive ..

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

PS Roger Deakins is a cinematographer who is pretty serious about his work .. and he has fully embraced digital capture.. a man of the people without any pretensions ..

 

So the choice of digital over film has now become a class struggle? Balderdash.

 

If you are unwilling to acknowledge differing aesthetic preferences, I think interaction with you is futile.

 

Reducing the preference of film over digital as an origination medium to some misguided sense of nostalgia is just snobbery...

.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I just saw a very old print of Ozu's Early Summer (black & white) - full of scratches and flaws and it was beautifully ALIVE. The characters were so alive I felt I was in the room with them. I felt nothing like that in Avatar even as multi colored 3d bugs flew out at me. I left the theater again praying we don't lose film. Someone noted that film is like a painting because it exists in the physical realm...it is like a painting in other ways too.

I'm not sure how you can compare a 70 year old, character driven, b&w film with a contemporary effects driven studio picture, and attribute the difference in experience to the capture medium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good heavens. Maybe you don't like classical music, Robin, with your hint at class divisions. Anyway, I do. So would you suggest that Mozart must always be played on clarinet? Why not violin, too? It's you who are tilting at windmills, and being influenced by dark rabbit holes. Go sit out in the sunshine a little while, and look at some flowers.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So the choice of digital over film has now become a class struggle? Balderdash.

 

If you are unwilling to acknowledge differing aesthetic preferences, I think interaction with you is futile.

 

Reducing the preference of film over digital as an origination medium to some misguided sense of nostalgia is just snobbery...

.

 

The snobbery is the other way round sir.. I dont care either one.. why would I.. all aim saying is that there is a fair amount of ethereal BS surrounding the subject.. and that simply its not anywhere near the be all and end all as to wether a film is good or bad.. plenty more for the concerned DOP top be worried about re the current state of the film industry ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good heavens. Maybe you don't like classical music, Robin, with your hint at class divisions. Anyway, I do. So would you suggest that Mozart must always be played on clarinet? Why not violin, too? It's you who are tilting at windmills, and being influenced by dark rabbit holes. Go sit out in the sunshine a little while, and look at some flowers.

 

.. eh ??? what ever your smoking.. I want some.. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shrug. There's not much point going on with this topic. I give up on it - it's like talking a philosophical point with an accountant or an engineer, or someone who just wants to crack open the next beer and fall asleep on the couch. Fair enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shrug. There's not much point going on with this topic. I give up on it - it's like talking a philosophical point with an accountant or an engineer, or someone who just wants to crack open the next beer and fall asleep on the couch. Fair enough.

 

 

Or a working DP who actually uses these camera,s.. and knows what they are talking about. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

 

The snobbery is the other way round sir.. I dont care either one.. why would I.. all aim saying is that there is a fair amount of ethereal BS surrounding the subject.. and that simply its not anywhere near the be all and end all as to wether a film is good or bad.. plenty more for the concerned DOP top be worried about re the current state of the film industry ..

 

I agree that there is also a bunch of ethereal BS that surrounds the endless hyping of supposed stops-of-dynamic range, bit depth and so on in dealing with digital cameras.

 

If you claim to be agnostic to the capture medium of a motion picture on the basis of its intrinsic quality of subject matter and artistic execution, you can't then dismiss film in the same breath and not contradict yourself.

 

Deakins now shoots digital; great! Should he suddenly helm a film shot on film at the director's request, will the end result automatically be inferior in your eyes?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how you can compare a 70 year old, character driven, b&w film with a contemporary effects driven studio picture, and attribute the difference in experience to the capture medium.

 

I compared the two because Avatar used 3d to seem alive and it was highly touted for its digital breakthroughs. I was comparing the effect of an "imperfect" celluloid image to the supposed hyper real "perfect" digital one. I found the "imperfect" celluloid image more alive. I keep saying maybe not everyone sees a difference between celluloid and digital but I do. I didn't attribute ALL the differences in the experience to the "capture" medium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I agree that there is also a bunch of ethereal BS that surrounds the endless hyping of supposed stops-of-dynamic range, bit depth and so on in dealing with digital cameras.

 

If you claim to be agnostic to the capture medium of a motion picture on the basis of its intrinsic quality of subject matter and artistic execution, you can't then dismiss film in the same breath and not contradict yourself.

 

Deakins now shoots digital; great! Should he suddenly helm a film shot on film at the director's request, will the end result automatically be inferior in your eyes?

 

You have mis under stood my argument totally.. sorry I obviously haven't explained it well.. Im NOT saying Digital is better than film.. the same as I would NOT say film is better than digital .. as the other posters have been blankly saying.. and I would think there is alot more to worry about regarding the future of the industry as a whole.. Deakins does shoot both.. but my point is 1 Here is one of the best DP,s on the planet.. who has openly said he has many times not been able to tell between footage shot digitally or on film.. and is not prejudice against digital and has learnt how to use it correctly .. 2 footage shot on film can look identical to Digital and visa versa .. depending on lenses/film type /exposure values etc.. 3 the say film intrinsically makes a better image is BS.. and if there is any snobbery its in that true "artistic"and serious DP,s can only create "ART" with film.. its empirically BS.. usually the rantings of films school students who have imbibed too much cheap red wine.. and yet to actually be in the real world of making your living as a DP.. I rest my case

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I compared the two because Avatar used 3d to seem alive and it was highly touted for its digital breakthroughs. I was comparing the effect of an "imperfect" celluloid image to the supposed hyper real "perfect" digital one. I found the "imperfect" celluloid image more alive. I keep saying maybe not everyone sees a difference between celluloid and digital but I do. I didn't attribute ALL the differences in the experience to the "capture" medium.

 

 

You can, but Roger Deakins cant .. ?. probably because you have seen something you think is Digital because its very "sharp".. but is actually shot on film.. and the other way round.. film is not all fuzzy, grainy, arty and" imperfect.". and Digital is not all sharp and electronic looking..and" perfect..".. 3D .. well yes most jobbing DP,s will see a difference .. even I an un serious one like me..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Not having scrutinized the entire 24 pages of postings on this thread, I can't authoritatively confirm that anyone has made the statement you strenuously argue against. Perhaps you are painting those sentiments upon all who responded in favor of film; and if you did, you're wrong to make the assumption we all feel that way.

 

Generally preferring film over digital does not automatically make one inflexible to seeing the merit in digital cinematography or workflows.

 

Expressing an preference for the look of film over digital, does not make one a Luddite or technophobe.

 

As a general rule, I have issues with rabid "purists" who cannot see the virtues beyond any one way of working, but I will respect personal preferences.

 

If we can just agree that all tools are valid, and the skills of the users are what make or break the project, we can put these futile arguments to rest...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If we can just agree that all tools are valid, and the skills of the users are what make or break the project, we can put these futile arguments to rest..."

 

Exactly my point.. film is not the only medium to create art.. which has been said.. or an intrinsic element to a movie .. being art or not.. its the content that matters not the medium..

 

BTW Ive shoot in the library of congress .. the old map of the US that has the word America on it.. we shot in the old castle in Germany where is was found.. and a re pro of Columbus's boat sailing around Lake Michigan ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

You can, but Roger Deakins cant .. ?. probably because you have seen something you think is Digital because its very "sharp".. but is actually shot on film.. and the other way round.. film is not all fuzzy, grainy, arty and" imperfect.". and Digital is not all sharp and electronic looking..and" perfect..".. 3D .. well yes most jobbing DP,s will see a difference .. even I an un serious one like me..

 

I said Roger Deakins is a great cinematographer & it is fine that he migrated to digital. He discussed his reasons and it seemed a thoughtful choice. I imagine he can see the difference. Glad you can too. My point discussing the old print of Ozu's film is that an old imperfect print is still beautiful. More recent works shot on film don't necessarily have scratches etc. They are beautiful too. I have also said REPEATEDLY that I have seen beautiful films shot on digital. I'm thinking at this point you are enjoying arguing and I've had enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, my earlier comment was more clever than I thought. In musical terms, digital to me really is more like clarinet tone. Grainless, crystalline, steady as a rock. Violin is edgier, vibrant, has grain and texture. Possibly riskier. Both are great.

Edited by Jon O'Brien
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I said Roger Deakins is a great cinematographer & it is fine that he migrated to digital. He discussed his reasons and it seemed a thoughtful choice. I imagine he can see the difference. Glad you can too. My point discussing the old print of Ozu's film is that an old imperfect print is still beautiful. More recent works shot on film don't necessarily have scratches etc. They are beautiful too. I have also said REPEATEDLY that I have seen beautiful films shot on digital. I'm thinking at this point you are enjoying arguing and I've had enough.

 

Me enjoy arguing ? never !!.. its just the burden of always being right .. a cross to bare..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, my earlier comment was more clever than I thought. In musical terms, digital to me really is more like clarinet tone. Grainless, crystalline, steady as a rock. Violin is edgier, vibrant, has grain and texture. Possibly riskier. Both are great.

 

The closest Ive got to this is bashing YoYo Ma,s strad Cello .. when moving the camera.. it was a very nice noise..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...