Film VS Digital | Video Essay

The grand debate of the two film formats - Film Celluloid & Digital Photography.
Upgrade or die? - Do filmmakers have to abandon film celluloid in order for Hollywood to move forward as an industry?

[joshimura]

Lucas and Sony created an alternative for young filmmakers to get their pictures made.

That shouldn't be understated.

[Gar]

My grandparents generation saw silent film turn into sound.
My parents generation saw black and white turn into colour.
My generation is watching film turn into digital.

All this is, is cinema evolving and changing. It's not a bad thing.

[msrobyn]

Why cant we keep both film and digital. Can we just appreciate old school and new school.

[DeadlyAviator]

With the amount of bias the title should really be "Film is better than Digital"

[PacificPlinker]

All of my favorite movies have just so happened to be film. It looks so much better than digital. Digital is too clean.

[Massivecarcrash]

The Film VS Digital debate is a moot point when every film is graded to hell and back in post.

Today, film looks like digital and digital looks like film and only the most trained eye can spot the difference. Shoting on film today will mean that the footage will be digitalized, color corrected, stabilized, color graded and run through numerous filters and effects before it's finished. By then you could have saved yourself the money and shot on digital instead.

[iians]

who cares what kind of brushes picasso used.

[atrijitdas]

is it actually true that the color and shadows captured by film cannot be matched by digital? you used clips from Godfather and Revenant to make this point. I don't think that's fair, both films probably look that way because the filmmakers wanted them to. the problem with digital is not with quality of image. it seems more of a problem as to how filmmakers use it. sometimes works well. sometimes it looks very generic. i don't think the film vs digital argument has much of a place here.
I looked at The Hateful Eight and The Revenant and both had great images. a different feel to it, but it doesn't feel like their inherent property. it's more of a choice by the DOP and and the director.

[JuanTheBone]

The argument that the prequels would have looked "more realistic" if shot in film is misplaced, the digital visuals that stood out to people were all those cartoon cgi characters not the medium itself. But on that topic, The Revenant was going to be shot on film but it HAD to be shot in digital as they only wanted to use natural light and only digital cameras have low light capabilities for it. The irony of your ending is that you layered a DIGITAL effect on top of several clips that were shot on film to replicate film grain and scratches.

[zanzanzanzan]

Nope nope nope. Lucas' prequel trilogy was not panned because it was shot using digital technology. It was panned for too much CGI and for all round being bad. Lucas' biggest contribution to film that time around WAS that technology. Just like what ILM did for special effects coming out of the original trilogy.

Film has almost no technical benefit now that I can think of. Dynamic range is just not a thing anymore. It however, will never be irrelevant either - the reason is history. The film has been around so long, that it's distinct look and feel is an important part of selling it's own authenticity in a medium that has established it as the standard going back generations. It will continue to be used for the same reason we still have lens flairs - it 'looks correct.' It's also the same as shooting in anything other than 24 frames per second - there is no reason why you couldn't tell a great story with 48, but my brain screams 'home video' when it looks even slighty off to me.

Over time, digital technology will establish it's own versions of authenticity - we haven't even had it for a generation yet. Things that look bland to us now will have cultural value in 20 years - and the cool thing is that we aren't necessarily as bound to the same limitations as film to define them. We don't have to be limited to films highlights/shadows/colours in doing so - and sure, right now at means that a lot of tripe is copy/pasta orange on teal.

[sadenb]

Digital sensors are getting incredibly better and better. Digital has come a long way.

[lw]

Film makers complained when sound came along. Then it was colour. Then it was widescreen audiences want 4:3 they argued. Now digital is here and it will become new format I'm sure.

[SuchetB]

i love the fim image more than the digital image - The celluloid image is always better - However I disagree with Toby in one area in the video when he says that one of the reasons for the poor critical receivement of the Star Wars prequels was because they were shot in digital. They were not criticised for the reason that George had switched to digital - The reason they were panned by fans and critics was because of story, characterisation and ideas which are important factors of movie making as well as the format of what its being shot on.

[nicolasstopmotion]

Watching movies on my TV, I honestly can't tell the difference between movies shot on 35 mm, 70 mm, and digital (although 16 mm and 8 mm are glaringly obvious). Maybe it matters more if you go to the cinema. Personally, I appreciate digital recording for making film making more accessible to the low-budget artists who have made great work.

[keithpetrino]

Don't you just love it how those in favor of digital (such as other directors and engineers) were given a voice in this video-- besides George Lucas, that is. What a bunch of bullshit this all was. Digital surpassed 35mm many years ago, and the notion that there are substantive aspects of film that digital cannot reproduce is so insanely wrong and just plain stupid, that I call into question how knowledgeable these directors really are. Perhaps (or perhaps not) digital sensors cannot yet rival 70mm film, but it's just a matter of time before they surpass it.

And what about how the most cited example of digital cinema in this video was the 18-yr-old Star Wars prequels, and the state of digital film making from almost two decades ago, and which were little more than animations with some live action footage composited in. This brings up another good point--that there are actually two arguments here that nobody in the video cared to delineate. One is the medium used for capturing the original image and the other is CG animation. These are two different things. You can do all in-camera effects for a movie shot all digitally, and you can do all CG effects for a movie shot on 35mm film and then scanned. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

And as to Scorcese's dumb, unfounded remarks about how when things are fast and cheap, that that only benefits the business people. Funny I think when things are fast and cheap, it democratizes the form and benefits everyone. And to the second part of his infantile and confused point about how when things that are fast and cheap, they are somehow ephemeral. Well, this is such a ridiculous leap of logic, I don't know what to say. Goes to show you how ridiculous some of these respected people really are, and don't even get me started on Tarantino's views which make him sound like some old man talking about how they "don't make em like they used to." You're right, asshole--they make em better!

Long story short: they ARE just tools. And if the movies aren't what they used to be, blaming the technology for that just shows that you have failed to identify the problem. A movie is only as good as those responsible for making it. Some of the most respected films of all time look like shit, visually: Old black and white movies with the 4:3 aspect ratio--hardly Lawrence of Arabia. Yet, according to these idiots, it's digital technology that is somehow, mysteriously, responsible for a lack of artistry. Morons.

[BampFilm]

I feel like film format obsessives are the same people that in other digital camera forums are the ones saying "the camera doesn't matter, it's the person behind the camera and the story being told" yet here they make a very fine definition between what is acceptable as cinema.

Conversely, I often find film obsessive cameramen who haven't shot film reluctant to learn the craft of using a light meter.... funny that

[zacharywhite]

If film stock stops being used then it means the death of cinema...? Maybe being a bit dramatic there mate...

[rty]

As an Emmy award video editor and have been working in video since braodcast video tape was invented, I can honestly say that each have thier own place, filmHas its charm and is "warmer" than video (there are reasons for this) whereas video has its own values. Its a shame that huge 70 foot screens are gone as well. A good example of this is Radio City Music Hall. It was one of the best movie theaters of its day. Where the image would engulf you in the action. Now you have glorified living rooms to watch a digital projection. That's sad as kids in thier 30s no have never experienced what real movies were all about.
Like I said, I can appreciate BOTH mediums and I hope film NEVER goes away!

[MatthewGhirardi]

I like both of them. For film: the naturalistic look and feel. For digital: cheap and easy

[ropersix]

Film is still able to handle daylight better, while digital does better in low light, and some movies use and take advantage of both. So it's not necessarily one or the other.