Film v.s Digital

[Blu Man]

Do you prefer movies to be shot with film or digital cameras. There are benifits to both. Film has higher definition and quality but films like Speed Racer pretty much had to be shot digitally. I prefer film but I thought this subject would be interesting to talk about.

[Johnny Vinyl]

I think I prefer film. But, like you said, it depends on the type of movie.

I don't know how to describe it, but there is a softness to film that digital can't quite capture. Maybe it's more natural looking? I don't know.

[naturephoto1]

I would probably say film.

Rich

[dadkins]

Depends on subject and whether or not crap film is used - be it for El Cheapo reasons or "Artistic Vision".

The whole point of HD is for the best picture one can achieve.
Some wish to take that as the best reproduction of whatever the director was thinking or trying to emotionally convey - fine!

Others wish the image to be as "Pristine" as possible.
Each person has to decide what they want to view on their display.

Since Speed Racer did a great job at delivering a pristine picture, and that's what I actually prefer on my displays, I chose Digital!

You asked!

[Sussudio]

film forever!

[My_Two_Cents]

What would be even more interesting would be to see how many film lovers are plasma owners and vice-verse. My "guess" (no offense intended to anyone) would be that plasma owners would be overwhelmingly "film", where LCD (more specifically, motion flow lovers) owners would lean toward digital.

For me: Plasma and Film

[Midnightsailor]

Film.

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Digital for me.

I like as much detail with as little grain as possible. Digital fulfills that desire nicely. I know that grain is what makes up the image with film, but the varying degrees of its presence is something that annoys me greatly in Hi-Def presentation. Digital prints have always looked immensely more clean on my television... thus creating more of a "looking through a window" effect as opposed to a "this is a film that you are watching" effect. I want to eliminate as much barrier between my living room and the world of the film.

[Secretagentnumber6]

Film. The old way. The best way.

[J_UNTITLED]

There is a richness and lifelike-quality to film/celluloid that digital has not yet been able to quite capture. Granted, in time I'm sure it will, but as of right now there is a slight coldness to a digital picture that, while certainly fitting for some kinds of films, is overall usually not quite as fulfilling as film.

[Dotpattern]

Film.

Digital has a bad motion blur when the camera pans or moves, or something moves in front of the camera that film doesn't have and it's been bothering me. I can actually tell when a movie has been shot digitally without knowing about the specs beforehand just from the motion blur. I noticed it in Hellboy II in the theater - especially during the scene where Hellboy is getting hit with the locker doors.

This same motion blur is especially noticeable on my DVD of Collateral.

[Blu Man]

Originally Posted by DoYouBlu

film forever!

I agree. Film has a better look. In an interveiw Chris Nolan was asked why he shoots with film, this was his response: "I shoot with film because I feel responsible for puttting the best picture possible on the screen". Enough said.

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

Digital for me.

I like as much detail with as little grain as possible. Digital fulfills that desire nicely. I know that grain is what makes up the image with film, but the varying degrees of its presence is something that annoys me greatly in Hi-Def presentation. Digital prints have always looked immensely more clean on my television... thus creating more of a "looking through a window" effect as opposed to a "this is a film that you are watching" effect. I want to eliminate as much barrier between my living room and the world of the film.

I agree.

Plus any effect that you want to add {be that grain, or others} can certainly be done in post production with less damage to the environment that developing film {or producing film} gets you.

Plus the Red Camera is SICK. I would love to tinker around with one of those, and I {hopefully} will get the chance early in the new year with a movie that I'm helping to produce/PA on.

Logan

[Sussudio]

Originally Posted by Spartan54

I agree. Film has a better look. In an interveiw Chris Nolan was asked why he shoots with film, this was his response: "I shoot with film because I feel responsible for puttting the best picture possible on the screen". Enough said.

[Blu Man]

Originally Posted by DoYouBlu

film grain is part of what makes film film. trying to fake something awesome (via digital effects) in a new medium only verifies how the older medium obviously had something better going on.

I see digital as immitation film. Why fake it when you can have the real deal?

[Sussudio]

Originally Posted by jadedeath

I agree.

Plus any effect that you want to add {be that grain, or others} can certainly be done in post production with less damage to the environment that developing film {or producing film} gets you.

Logan

why would you want to artificially insert film grain? the whole point of grain is that it is one of film's natural characteristics. the capability to duplicate it digitally just proves how great it must have been in the first place.

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by Spartan54

I see digital as immitation film. Why fake it when you can have the real deal?

Because the medium is leaning away from film.

Digital is cheaper {by far} and studios are there to make money. Given a global economic downturn, studios are going to start leaning digital sooner rather than later. Film is just becoming too expensive to not only a} make but b} to store. Digital is the new Black.

Logan

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by DoYouBlu

why would you want to artificially insert film grain? the whole point of grain is that it is one of film's natural characteristics. the capability to duplicate it digitally just proves how great it must have been in the first place.

I'm not saying that most people would want to, but the option is there should it be needed.

Check out my website in my sig, I did the Abney Park video in Adobe Premiere and made it look like an old school 1900's flick. {it wasn't the GREATEST mind you but it was damned good for a first try if I do say so myself}

Similar effects can be used for adding grain to digitally shot movies.

Logan

[Sussudio]

Originally Posted by jadedeath

Because the medium is leaning away from film.

Digital is cheaper {by far} and studios are there to make money. Given a global economic downturn, studios are going to start leaning digital sooner rather than later. Film is just becoming too expensive to not only a} make but b} to store. Digital is the new Black.

Logan

since when did cheaper always equal better? i think the point of the thread isn't why studios should use one or the other, but which one do you personally think is better? sure digital might be easier to use, and i think digital editing is a great improvement over the old flatbeds, but shooting with film is so much more organic and a continued tribute to the beginning of moviemaking. i'm glad there are some directors who insist on always using film, and i personally hope it never dies out even though digital is becoming the majority medium. still, i respect your reasons for supporting it.

[Blu Man]

Originally Posted by jadedeath

Because the medium is leaning away from film.
Logan

What are you talking about? Most movies are still being made with film and IMAX is starting to pick up with the action/ Sci fi films. After TDK IMAX deal a lot of directors are now interested in shooting with IMAX film. Transformers: Revenge of the fallen has IMAX scenes and Ironman 2 is also going to have IMAX scenes. And all great directors still shoot with film and don't want to change. Film in and for at least yours and my life will be the best format to shoot with.