Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Film vs Digital Cinematography
Don't really know if this is worth a brand new thread of its own. Moderators, feel free to merge this into an existing one.

This is a fairly indepth comparison of film vs digital. But digital through DSLRs, no less. I found it interesting.
I don't think there's an actual competition between the two. I've come to this conclusion after so many people in television have ranted to me about digital (I had a regular class practically devoted to this, in television production!), and filmmakers ranting about film versus digital (in which case any party already knows what they'll be shooting with). Digital programs are necessary for a lot in the industry, of course, and one has a choice of shooting on film (easier but expensive) or digital (cheaper but more difficult). Either format can lend itself well to different uses. If digital 'wins' (more like making film obsolete) it won't matter, it'll be like DVD replacing VHS.
Yeah, it's not so much that it's necessarily film vs. digital - maybe more a comparison of film & digital.

I've not shot any live action myself for any of my personal or commercial work & I'm very unlikely to be in a position to use film even if I get the opportunity, so it was enlightening to hear these folk talk openly about what is possible with DSLRs. For instance, I found it surprising how digital coped well with darkly lit areas while struggling with retaining subtle details in bright elements.

My buddy shoots with the Cannon 5D & he mentioned that he found it tricky to push the colours in post. Not sure if this is an inherent problem with loss of information from compression or what. He also mentioned that it suffers from those annoying (for us grunts in post) rolling shutter distortions.

Shooting digital is kinda the only option for a lot of folk due to cost as you've mentioned. It's just good to hear about how well (or not) it copes with common shooting conditions.

I'd welcome any folk on the boards with any experience (first hand or otherwise) to share their thoughts/feelings on the subject.
I'm kinda nostalgic for a time that was before my own. Today it's like you have to be a technician to make a film - as if it's a craft like computer programming or welding. And it can be, especially with certain projects. When I speak to camerapeople I hear lots of jargon - although, sometimes, this stuff doesn't have any bearing on the project - like a briefly out of focus shot, or a dolly that doesn't immediately allow the camera to find its subject. Digital filmmaking is damn intimidating.
Didn't want to start a new thread about this, so I'm glad I found this old one. I almost post this in the LITTLE WOMEN thread because I recall that's where there was some discussion on this topic (I may have even post this very link in there)

It's been slightly over a decade since the last post in here, but in 2016 Steve Yedlin (Rian Johnson's frequent DP collaborator) performed his own test in comparing film and digital image capture with the purpose of pushing back against commonly held dogma about overprioritizing pixel count/resolution in terms of achieving a 'cinematic' look with digital.

Yedlin's research on this topic is what led to him convincing Johnson (a proponent of using film) to shoot KNIVES OUT with an ARRI ALEXA (except for one 35mm close-up of Daniel Craig, I think).

Compelling stuff if you're at all interested in any of this.
[Image: 4K-truth_updated2.jpg]
From 2012

I used to be with "it", but then they changed what "it" was. Now, what I'm with isn't "it", and what's "it" seems weird and scary to me.   -Grandpa Simpson
hahaha yeah, I saw that documentary back when it came out

the most memorable parts tended to be the interviews with Fincher
My latest video essay tackles the film vs. digital debate....

In 1916 a U.S. court ruling, following the example of company law in Britain, effectively made it illegal for a corporation to be motivated by anything but the maximization of profit.  Corporate social-responsibility, therefore, became illegal. 
Even when modern features are shot AND projected on film, most go through a digital intermediate to create the release print anyway. I think you're right about a key factor being the care taken in lighting and staging-- there's more at risk with film.
"I'd rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than in any city on Earth."--Steve McQueen
Yeah I think the convenience factor is a major component that is glossed over with digital proponents... it completely changes the mindset of a filmmaker, and as a result, changes the entire film... and not necessarily for the better.
In 1916 a U.S. court ruling, following the example of company law in Britain, effectively made it illegal for a corporation to be motivated by anything but the maximization of profit.  Corporate social-responsibility, therefore, became illegal. 
If I could shoot something tomorrow, I'd love to shoot on film and edit digitally. For me that's the sweet spot.
And have it shot by Jan de Bont, Christopher Doyle, Vittorio Storaro or Peter Deming.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)