Film and Digital

tom.w.bn said:
I don't think that most cinema films are filmed digital today. But a lot of cinema films don't come on rolls but they deliver a hard drive with the film on it protected with digital rights management to the cinema. So I think that a lot of film is scanned and then digitally processed.
Click to expand...
But all the studios still archive every completed movie on film, regardless of how it was shot. This is what I'm talking about, not delivery to the theaters.
 
I still don't get it. Of course ,everyone knows that digital is "better "than film. Then, what is it about film that makes people buy programs to make digital try to emulate any one of dozens of film "looks" with Silver FX etc ? What am I missing ? When will I be able to buy software that makes my scanned film "look" like the output of a Canon Mark whatever ????
 
photogdave said:
But all the studios still archive every completed movie on film, regardless of how it was shot. This is what I'm talking about, not delivery to the theaters.
Click to expand...

True. Nobody in their right mind would trust any magnetic or optical storage media as a permanent solution. Kodak estar based negatives are rated for at least 300 years. The negatives are stored in old salt mines. Apparently there are two of these, one located on each coast.
 
trph_2000
We are accustomed to the aesthetic qualities of film grain and tonality because they preceded digital image capture, so people attempt to mimic it for familiarity's sake.
 
trph_2000 said:
I still don't get it. Of course ,everyone knows that digital is "better "than film. Then, what is it about film that makes people buy programs to make digital try to emulate any one of dozens of film "looks" with Silver FX etc ? What am I missing ? When will I be able to buy software that makes my scanned film "look" like the output of a Canon Mark whatever ????
Click to expand...


I call it a draw. Both have their strengths, with neither landing a knock out punch.

For many years the mantra was that digital was cheaper than film.
Well, it is and isn't.

People say you don't need as many lights for digital as for film, but that's nonsense. You may need a little less wattage, because you can shoot with a slightly higher asa, but you're also not going to shoot a movie at f1.4. You need enough DOF for the actors to move around, so we are talking f5.6 probably.

The rental costs on something like a Sony F35 are a lot, lot higher than for a top of the line film camera. So, you have to do the numbers game. You estimate how much film you are going to shoot, the developing, storage and transfer costs. The RED is much cheaper to rent, but not as good as film in many ways. But for an indie production it can be a lot more cost effective than shooting film. http://www.arridigital.com/budget

But that doesn't tell the whole story either. If you are shooting a $100 million dollar movie are you really going to compromise to save a relatively small amount of money?

Also keep this in mind. Ever since the mid 90's people have been predicting that the death of film for movie production is right around the corner.

Well, that must be a very long corner, because it's only been in this past year that a digital cine camera has appeared that really is a serious threat to film and IMO that is the Sony F35. It appears top solve many of the temporal and dynamic range issues that plagued it's predecessors.

In the wings are a new RED with an improved sensor and the Arri D21 'Alexa' (http://www.arridigital.com/alexa-reservation). Both of these cameras (the Arri in particular) appear to be a tipping point in this ongoing saga. They offer nearly the same DR (12 stops) as film and solve many of the other problems (temporal issues, fps, etc). They are also a lot cheaper than something like the F35.

So, the technology is finally starting to catch up with the hype.

A lot of it also has to do with personal preference.

There are the rabid RED zealots. While there are a lot of serious professionals using this camera, there is a legion of fanboys, who are dismissive of any 'old' technology (rotating shutter, optical viewfinder etc) and want to dump everything for the newest toys.

There are directors like David Fincher, who see the potential in an all digital workflow and manage to produce a film that looks pretty much as good as anything shot on film. But people like him don't grow on trees.

You have the studio bean counters who are wiling to toss out the baby with the bath water, if they think it will save a few pennies.

On the other hand there are many, many directors of photography and directors who love film and will continue to shoot it as long as is possible.

Even the actors have an opinion. Many of them are horrified of the idea of being shot with a razor sharp 4k camera that shows every imperfection and wrinkle. All but a few 20 year olds can survive such scrutiny. You could fill a book with the tricks that have been invented to obscure, blur and diffuse wrinkles and sagging skin.

Art directors are also unsure, because cheap sets look really cheap when shot digital. With film, you could build something cheaply and simply and once it fir film some magic would happen and it would look great. Not the case with digital and can drive up costs considerably.

So, as you can see there is no easy answer to any of this and that list is far from complete...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom