Film vs digital in the Movie world
Discussion
Thought id start this thread, since me and a few others shamelessly hijacked the raw vs jpeg thead!
We started talking about dslr's and video and film
Super Slo Mo said:
Fordo said:
I used an Arriflex d21 on an arri training course last year- stunning camera. its a pure digi cinema camera- theyve essentially taken a film camera, and just put a digital back end on it. It has pretty much no menu options aside from white balance. - you want to change shutter angle? you physically change the shutter wheel, like you would on a film camera. Also has a mirror shutter and optical viewfinder- amazing to use. no eye strain, and you can see beyond the edge of frame. But the camera is well over 100k in price! but its only place in the world is being hired for big blockbusters. Costs more to hire than a red, but some dop's tend to prefer it- its just like the arri film cameras theyve used in the past- all the lenses / viewfinders etc that they like using, can be used with it. The film cam op's like it because of the optical viewfinder, and although resoultion is lower than the red, it's suppposed to produce a far superior image (according to their techie guy anyway).
Now that's interesting. Makes sense too, I was talking to a friend of mine on a job the other week about the continued use of 35mm film (of which he still does quite a bit). He was saying that because there's still a massive amount of experience in the industry with 35mm, many people still prefer to use it because they know exactly what to do with it, and haven't the time or inclination to start learning all about digital (especially the more experienced (older!) people). The Arri D21 sounds like it's the perfect crossover camera, although you'd expect that coming from those guys.
But now, if i had to shoot a movie, id do it on 35mm- for those reasons you mentioned. Theres far more talented and experienced people who know what theyre doing with 35mm film, than there are experts in digital cinema equipment. 35mm film is a true universal format, pretty much every country can project it, so theres no transfer costs. Plus, when the films shot, you can seal it in a can, bury it in the ground and it'll probably still be good in 100 years. Things on hard drives or even optical media- i wouldnt be 100% certain.
The advantages of digital are great- but i still think theres place for film, even in next 10/20 years or so.
Thought this short video series might amuse a few. I watched it screen on a 2k projector at arri's HQ in uxbridge. Some parts of the film were shot on a digital cinema cam, and some on a film camera- on a huge 2k projector, you could really see the differences between them. In my view, the film camera had more 'feel' and character to it, the digi footage was cripser and puchier, but didnt handle highlights as well as film.
episode 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEg07bA1gzs
episode 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM4xH-jZ1NU
episode 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4c3lwyYyxo
Ha, nearly missed this! Watching the MotoGP and surfing PH, before I get dragged out into the garden (rare day off, you see).
I shall watch those links later, they look interesting (ETA: most amusing, thanks). It would be good to see digital and film differences on their respective projectors though although nowadays, I gather much of the editing and post production is done in the digital domain, even if the original is shot on film.
Even if a movie is shot on film, I believe it's not unusual nowadays for the final version to be scanned out to digital for the movie theatres. The advantage of digital in this respect is in transportation, a hard drive, or a few optical disks take up less room than a stack of 1000 foot canisters. Much less fun for the projectionists though I'm sure.
Having said that, I was in the projection room of the VUE cinema on Leicester square a few weeks ago, they're still fully geared up for film projection, despite also having a full complement of digital projectors.
From what I can gather, film technology hasn't changed all that much for a long time, which is a good thing because it's easier for people to become expert in their particular field, and just get on with the job at hand. Digital is somewhat different, since each major change in the technology involves a whole new set of skills to learn (even down to just making the equipment work properly!), which kind of gets in the way of the movie/programme making process somewhat.
Mind you, I did a job this week using analogue gear, which had me racking my brains trying to get rid of induced noise and stuff like that, which I haven't had to deal with in something like 10 years!
ETA: Note to self: watch the links before passing comment
.
I shall watch those links later, they look interesting (ETA: most amusing, thanks). It would be good to see digital and film differences on their respective projectors though although nowadays, I gather much of the editing and post production is done in the digital domain, even if the original is shot on film.
Even if a movie is shot on film, I believe it's not unusual nowadays for the final version to be scanned out to digital for the movie theatres. The advantage of digital in this respect is in transportation, a hard drive, or a few optical disks take up less room than a stack of 1000 foot canisters. Much less fun for the projectionists though I'm sure.
Having said that, I was in the projection room of the VUE cinema on Leicester square a few weeks ago, they're still fully geared up for film projection, despite also having a full complement of digital projectors.
From what I can gather, film technology hasn't changed all that much for a long time, which is a good thing because it's easier for people to become expert in their particular field, and just get on with the job at hand. Digital is somewhat different, since each major change in the technology involves a whole new set of skills to learn (even down to just making the equipment work properly!), which kind of gets in the way of the movie/programme making process somewhat.
Mind you, I did a job this week using analogue gear, which had me racking my brains trying to get rid of induced noise and stuff like that, which I haven't had to deal with in something like 10 years!
ETA: Note to self: watch the links before passing comment
.Edited by Super Slo Mo on Sunday 4th October 16:40
Fordo said:
But now, if i had to shoot a movie, id do it on 35mm- for those reasons you mentioned. Theres far more talented and experienced people who know what theyre doing with 35mm film, than there are experts in digital cinema equipment. 35mm film is a true universal format, pretty much every country can project it, so theres no transfer costs. Plus, when the films shot, you can seal it in a can, bury it in the ground and it'll probably still be good in 100 years. Things on hard drives or even optical media- i wouldnt be 100% certain.
The advantages of digital are great- but i still think theres place for film, even in next 10/20 years or so.
Loved the shorts. Thanks for the links.The advantages of digital are great- but i still think theres place for film, even in next 10/20 years or so.
So many things one might comment on but the little I know is based on consumer stuff - still images and 8mm cine film.
The look of film clearly has an appeal, though this may be partly due to conditioning for us older people and likely to fade over time.
Yes a stored film may survive for 100 years - but then someone has to know where to find it. On the other hand digital tends to proliferate so there are (technology changes notwithstanding) more chances of a copy turning up(?). Even if the film survives will it be accessible without a lot of effort? If effort is required, will the population 100 years hence bother to take it on? ( I am assuming that people are not back to living in caves by then ....)
The internet age world suggests that people will attempt to preserve things digitally since to do so, at least from a digital source, is relatively easy even as technology changes. It's not a guarantee, but then neither is there any guarantee that film projection technology would still be available or of enough interest for people to wish to recreate it.
So perhaps for commercial film production the question of qhich technology to use, as of now, revolves around the look one wished to achieve and/or the people source at one's disposal and their experience. The secondary consideration will be how long the work you create has likely validity.
A music promo - go digital. Most have a rather short guaranteed life.
A major artistic interpretation of something of historical importance? Shoot 35mm and then digitise - you get the best of both options and improve the chances of the survival of the work by using both media.
Image Quality, as a comparison with current standards, has no meaning for long term future retrospective consideration. IMHO. Sad, but there you go.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff