[Virgil Tracy]

there's a new documentary coming out about the pros and cons of film vs. digital .

most cinemas seem to be showing digital now and a lot of movies are now shot on digital .

IMO - film has a lot higher quality , but digital is easier to shoot , but as a viewer I prefer film , and I can't believe they went ahead with digital before they got it up to the quality of film .

[stripedcat]

Hmmm, interesting. I do agree with you about the fact that film makers should have wanted for the Digital Video technology to catch-up with film's resolution. I think there is also the issue of Digital's ability to be as dynamic with the colour palette. It is very good(especially comparing to old broadcast video), but I don't think it is quite as strong as companies like Sony make out.

I have seen a film in 8K digital(Django Unchained) and it seem pretty good.

I do recall the big fuss being made of DLP. I saw 'Finding Nemo' at the Odeon Leicester Square with it. That looked amazing, but having a CGI film to DLP makes sense. No loss of quality.


DV can't do 70 mm film properly - yet. Although, there isn't really that much call for it. I suppose only for special IMAX films it was needed.

I have only ever seen one 70 mm film projected (The Master). It did seem that epic. Probably because of the cinema it was shown in(The Odeon West End) and also because of the way the film was shot with the framing. It mostly looked like a slightly wider 35 mm film, but not by much.

I suppose that it does sort of make sense to go digital. Ease of use with the media, etc. Plus, not having the problem of print damage and degradation.

[theonlyweeman]

I think there's room for both. There will always be purists who think there's magic in film that doesn't exist in digital, maybe they're right, I haven't been lucky enough to use film so I wouldn't know.

But digital technology offers the ability for anyone to become a director and to film in locations you wouldn't normally be able to or do things you might not previously be able to, which is exciting because it gives everyone a chance to make an amazing film and audiences the chances to see amazing films they might not have been able to before.

I think directors should be free to choose, and that anyone who is stuffy about going digital or using film, probably isn't a true film fan, because whilst there may be a magical feeling in film, the advent of digital cameras that allow anyone to have a go could produce some incredibly interesting material, you wouldn't have had a chance to see before...

[felixrex]

Film. Always film. Not that I'm shouting from the rooftops for digital to be condemned or anything. But film has a soul to it that digital just can't touch.

[Virgil Tracy]

Originally Posted by theonlyweeman

I think there's room for both. There will always be purists who think there's magic in film that doesn't exist in digital, maybe they're right, I haven't been lucky enough to use film so I wouldn't know.

But digital technology offers the ability for anyone to become a director and to film in locations you wouldn't normally be able to or do things you might not previously be able to, which is exciting because it gives everyone a chance to make an amazing film and audiences the chances to see amazing films they might not have been able to before.

I think directors should be free to choose, and that anyone who is stuffy about going digital or using film, probably isn't a true film fan, because whilst there may be a magical feeling in film, the advent of digital cameras that allow anyone to have a go could produce some incredibly interesting material, you wouldn't have had a chance to see before...

I don't know - are digital cameras and processes cheap ? besides it's the rest of the stuff that still costs loads - actors , sets , promotion etc.

[theonlyweeman]

Originally Posted by felixrex

Film. Always film. Not that I'm shouting from the rooftops for digital to be condemned or anything. But film has a soul to it that digital just can't touch.

When I'm watching films on Blu Ray I can't tell the difference. How do you know there's a soul in film? With modern films it's had to tell...

Originally Posted by Virgil Tracy

I don't know - are digital cameras and processes cheap ? besides it's the rest of the stuff that still costs loads - actors , sets , promotion etc.

I never said professional level film, I meant it's interesting to see things people have filmed on their phone with their mates during the weekend.

But access to digital technology does mean it's possible to create a film for a lot less than it used to...

[Virgil Tracy]

Originally Posted by theonlyweeman

When I'm watching films on Blu Ray I can't tell the difference. How do you know there's a soul in film? With modern films it's had to tell...


I never said professional level film, I meant it's interesting to see things people have filmed on their phone with their mates during the weekend.

But access to digital technology does mean it's possible to create a film for a lot less than it used to...

well I'm talking about movies we see in cinemas .

as for cost - is there any evidence that its cheaper ?

[theonlyweeman]

Originally Posted by Virgil Tracy

well I'm talking about movies we see in cinemas .

as for cost - is there any evidence that its cheaper ?

The last time I saw film in the cinema it flickered heavily, to the point where it hurt my eyes. It was soul destroying, because the film was brilliant, but I could barely stand to look at the light scenes it was flickering so much...

Evidence? Basic logic suggests that's true. I'll provide evidence when you provide evidence of the "soul" present in film....

[Virgil Tracy]

Originally Posted by theonlyweeman

The last time I saw film in the cinema it flickered heavily, to the point where it hurt my eyes. It was soul destroying, because the film was brilliant, but I could barely stand to look at the light scenes it was flickering so much...

Evidence? Basic logic suggests that's true. I'll provide evidence when you provide evidence of the "soul" present in film....

why do I have to provide evidence for that ?

[theonlyweeman]

Originally Posted by Virgil Tracy

why do I have to provide evidence for that ?

because I don't believe you (and I because I couldn't be arsed to find evidence to support my claim (though it doesn't really need it)). I see no soul or magic in film, only an annoying flicker that gave me a headache...

[Tal'shiar]

Well this is an awesome topic that will surely be full of utter crap.

So film is more "real" is it? what do you watch your "film" on? let me guess, a DVD player of some hard disc based player, on a digital TV. Not to mention any post processing that goes into movies, even old films have to be processed in order to get them onto DVD etc.

Its that same issue when the White Stripes pointed out they never used digital when recording albums. Those same albums that were sold on CDs and online (all digital) or the post production clean ups that were all, yep you guessed it, digital.

Film worked because it was all we had, now digital is here and its far better than film could ever dream of being. But thats progress. No one is using horses to get to work, because cars are better, but with no souls.

Anything film can do, digital can also do. And make sure you are comparing actual examples, not Transformers vs Once Upon a Time in the West.

Sorry if I come off rude, but this whole "old" vs "new" subject has been done to death in almost every aspect of media, and its getting tiresome beyond belief.

[theonlyweeman]

Originally Posted by Tal'shiar

Well this is an awesome topic that will surely be full of utter crap.

So film is more "real" is it? what do you watch your "film" on? let me guess, a DVD player of some hard disc based player, on a digital TV. Not to mention any post processing that goes into movies, even old films have to be processed in order to get them onto DVD etc.

Its that same issue when the White Stripes pointed out they never used digital when recording albums. Those same albums that were sold on CDs and online (all digital) or the post production clean ups that were all, yep you guessed it, digital.

Film worked because it was all we had, now digital is here and its far better than film could ever dream of being. But thats progress. No one is using horses to get to work, because cars are better, but with no souls.

Anything film can do, digital can also do. And make sure you are comparing actual examples, not Transformers vs Once Upon a Time in the West.

Sorry if I come off rude, but this whole "old" vs "new" subject has been done to death in almost every aspect of media, and its getting tiresome beyond belief.

I assumed the OP meant film as in the item video is recorded on, not film as in "Transformers" or "Once Upon A Time In The West". If that's the case, how do we provide examples.

[Tal'shiar]

Originally Posted by theonlyweeman

I assumed the OP meant film as in the item video is recorded on, not film as in "Transformers" or "Once Upon A Time In The West". If that's the case, how do we provide examples.

I know what he meant and thats what I was pointing out. Once upon a time in the west used film real, and the Transformers movies were recorded digitally.

You cannot provide examples, not in any scientific sense for exactly the reason I stated.

Transformers is a souless piece of crap, chruned out to idiots. Once upon... is a classic. So in this case film would win.

But Zombie Nosh was garbage and that used film, in fact lots of movies and TV shows shot on film are a pile of junk not worth the film they were filmed with.

yet lots of digitally shot films are amazing and great films.

Think of it like this, is a band/artist better because its on LP compared to say MP3 (or Flac if you prefer)? The medium has little to do with the product, its the product that counts. It works in ANY media format.

Sonic is a good game because its a good game. Not because its on an older technology.

The Beatles are still good in an mp3 player, and Rihanna is still crap on cassette as well as CD.

The Thing was shot entirely on film and had no CGI whatsoever (one of the last major films to boast such a thing), Lord of the Rings (I personally cannot be fussed with them) were digital CGI hyper joints, yet many people love them.

No one ever cared if the film used techniscope or was shot on a HD Cam or an old nokia phone, only if it was any good.

[theonlyweeman]

Originally Posted by Tal'shiar

I know what he meant and thats what I was pointing out. Once upon a time in the west used film real, and the Transformers movies were recorded digitally.

You cannot provide examples, not in any scientific sense for exactly the reason I stated.

Transformers is a souless piece of crap, chruned out to idiots. Once upon... is a classic. So in this case film would win.

But Zombie Nosh was garbage and that used film, in fact lots of movies and TV shows shot on film are a pile of junk not worth the film they were filmed with.

yet lots of digitally shot films are amazing and great films.

Think of it like this, is a band/artist better because its on LP compared to say MP3 (or Flac if you prefer)? The medium has little to do with the product, its the product that counts. It works in ANY media format.

Sonic is a good game because its a good game. Not because its on an older technology.

The Beatles are still good in an mp3 player, and Rihanna is still crap on cassette as well as CD.

The Thing was shot entirely on film and had no CGI whatsoever (one of the last major films to boast such a thing), Lord of the Rings (I personally cannot be fussed with them) were digital CGI hyper joints, yet many people love them.

No one ever cared if the film used techniscope or was shot on a HD Cam or an old nokia phone, only if it was any good.

Which makes sense, what you're saying is that the medium shouldn't/doesn't matter and that the quality, intentions and passion of the film maker are what counts...

I misunderstood what you were saying...

[Tal'shiar]

Originally Posted by theonlyweeman

Which makes sense, what you're saying is that the medium shouldn't/doesn't matter and that the quality, intentions and passion of the film maker are what counts...

I misunderstood what you were saying...

Yep, although I may spoil it now though....

...film vs digital does have SOME interesting aspects though.

Back when film was all we had, the start up costs for the cameras and equipment was MUCH higher, so it was more likely you would need talent in order to get investments into films. You would need talent and also some level of history (proven track record, good films, critical acclaim and so on)

But with digital being so cheap now days, a lot more people can make films. Those that would have been laughed out of a board room making a pitch for some generic crap are now able to make films. So digital has increased the amount of hacks, but it also allowed unknown geniuses to also get a shot where as in the older days they may have never gotten the chance.

[mike65]

I await the remake of Lawrence of Arabia shot with digital cameras. *cough*

[Virgil Tracy]

Originally Posted by theonlyweeman

because I don't believe you

what are you on about ? I never said anything about film having "soul"

[Virgil Tracy]

Originally Posted by Tal'shiar

Well this is an awesome topic that will surely be full of utter crap.

So film is more "real" is it? what do you watch your "film" on? let me guess, a DVD player of some hard disc based player, on a digital TV. Not to mention any post processing that goes into movies, even old films have to be processed in order to get them onto DVD etc.

Its that same issue when the White Stripes pointed out they never used digital when recording albums. Those same albums that were sold on CDs and online (all digital) or the post production clean ups that were all, yep you guessed it, digital.

Film worked because it was all we had, now digital is here and its far better than film could ever dream of being. But thats progress. No one is using horses to get to work, because cars are better, but with no souls.

Anything film can do, digital can also do. And make sure you are comparing actual examples, not Transformers vs Once Upon a Time in the West.

Sorry if I come off rude, but this whole "old" vs "new" subject has been done to death in almost every aspect of media, and its getting tiresome beyond belief.

as far as I know the resolution on digital at the moment is nowhere near as high as 35mm film . so how is that progress ?

[Semierotic]

As long as digital actually looks like film, or better, I don't care. Trouble is you have these big directors like Michael Mann or Steve Soderberg singing the format's praises, but their recent films look like s**t.

[mike65]

film "definition" (use of " " is because film does not have definition it has crystal grain) when converted is between 3 and 12 million pixels depending the stock and lens. But the main things about digital video v film stock is not so much definition/apparent clarity its the aesthetics.

Untreated digital footage v untreated film stock is a win for the latter every time and the mere existence of this product tells me all I need to know!

http://www.crumplepop.com/grain35-landing-page/

http://nofilmschool.com/2012/09/film...gital-sensors/

[jalal]

Film all the way, look how great Django, Inception and The Dark Knight looked. It feels very authentic then the clear cut, fake grain in digital films.

Imax is the way forward for action blockbusters, thankfully there are still exceptional director like QT and Nolan make outstanding contribution to cinema and film.

[Tal'shiar]

Originally Posted by Virgil Tracy

as far as I know the resolution on digital at the moment is nowhere near as high as 35mm film . so how is that progress ?

Film isnt measured the same, so its stupid to compare. Its also stupid to think "more pixels" means its better. Thats like saying a painting with more paint is better.

Besides, film has a limit imposed by the medium, whilst digital can in theory continue up forever.

Also, you have to consider the point when human eyes can no longer distinguish the difference between the two.

Also, people seem to think a film like "No Country for Old Men" is good because it used film, as though the actors, the story, the director and so on had nothing really to do with the film.

Its not the medium, its the product. This is a REALLY simple concept to understand you know.

[Virgil Tracy]

Originally Posted by Tal'shiar

Film isnt measured the same, so its stupid to compare. Its also stupid to think "more pixels" means its better. Thats like saying a painting with more paint is better.

Besides, film has a limit imposed by the medium, whilst digital can in theory continue up forever.

Also, you have to consider the point when human eyes can no longer distinguish the difference between the two.

Also, people seem to think a film like "No Country for Old Men" is good because it used film, as though the actors, the story, the director and so on had nothing really to do with the film.

Its not the medium, its the product. This is a REALLY simple concept to understand you know.

I'm not talking about the actors or the story I'm talking about the comparison between film and digital , this is a REALLY simple concept to understand you know.

[Tal'shiar]

Originally Posted by Virgil Tracy

I'm not talking about the actors or the story I'm talking about the comparison between film and digital , this is a REALLY simple concept to understand you know.

Again it really isnt. Because resolution is only part of it, the lens used, the viewing source and so on.

Not to mention the huge benefits digital has over film in editing and costs, and how much easier it is for people to learn how to use it over film.

You can actually buy digital cameras with more resolution than film, but no one really uses them for film making as its just overkill. So even in resolution digital can be higher if you want it to, and can afford and use it.

[David Waine]

Film uses silver in its emulsion and the world's reserves of it are running out. That is why digital has been developed. A decade ago, digital image quality was not in the same league as film, but intensive development has changed all that. Go along to watch a new feature film at your local multiplex and you will be hard put to tell whether it was shot on film or digitally if you didn't already know.

'Les Miserables' was shot on 35mm film, but I saw it, projected digitally, at my nearest IMAX venue. The image quality was flawless, which just shows what can be achieved. Of course, as IMAX is not a wide screen format, they would have used the entire film frame, unlike the vast majority of films over the last twenty years or so, which used 'Super 35', which is directly descended from RKO's ultra-cheap 'Superscope' of 1957. This achieved a wide screen aspect ratio by shooting conventionally and masking it down so that only a fraction of the frame was actually used. That is why a widescreen film will often look better on one of the local multiplex's smaller screens than one of the big ones. It requires less enlargement to fill the screen. Super 35's achilles heel was always that its image quality was right up against its limits where big screens were concerned.

Although digital cannot yet match the sheer resolving power of 35mm, it tends to produce a smoother image when greatly enlarged, so the final image on the screen is comparable. At the rate the technology is developing, it is likely that digital will surpass the capabilities of film within a decade or so, and will then take over completely.