David Lynch on why he prefers digital to film

David Lynch talks about his preference for digital video and why celluloid is a dinosaur.
January 13th, 2006

[DanielNothing]

Reading Lynch's biography right now. He has always been about utility and accessibility to materials. He has repeatedly said that the only reason he used film in his day was because it was the only game in town if you wanted a detailed image.
He evangelises in the book about digital too. His dream scenario is everyone having immediate access to creative tools without too much expense or hassle. There's a passage where he talks about using Photoshop for the first time and he almost blacks out with happiness because it does things in seconds it used to take him hours to do.

[Fake_Robot]

My nightmares: David Lynch films. David Lynch’s nightmares: film.

[plaidchuck]

I definitely like his take. It’s all about how you use the tools. If digital makes you work better, use it.

On the flipside if someone like Nolan works best with film that’s fine too.

Point is, beating your chest about being a purist because something is “just the way it’s always been done” is pointless.

[robertholtz]

This is what I love about Lynch. He is, all at once, simultaneously, an old school classicist AND a new school visionary. The rare mark of only the greatest storytellers.

[JustaRandomGuy]

Everything he says is so smart but also so accidentally funny at the same time

[Zombiesnyder]

Never expected an old-school filmmaker like him to have this preference

[gimmibox]

I can just listen to David Lynch talk for hours and hours

[nutmegriot]

the movie reels are extremely large & heavy too. i used to work for a local movie theatre & the projectionist was too old & too short to carry them. he used to make us ushers carry them over our shoulder whenever a movie switched rooms to switch them. but he was always so nervous about it.
the reels were so big that they barely missed scraping the floor as you walked w/them. and you had to be strong enough to keep it from touching the ground. he only used me if other workers weren’t available b/c i was kind of a klutz and some workers he wouldn’t use at all. it was always so nerve wracking b/c the reels were so expensive. the owners would switch rooms all the time too

[jassonsw]

Amen to that. It also puts film making into the hands of ordinary people with just a good digital camera and a computer. Bravo David Lynch.

[bolttracks]

(it's actually fairly easy to get reel-to-reel audio tape)

[cqsgcbt]

Some years later in a different interview(masterclass), David would admit that, while he still loves digital, celluloid can translate things that digital is not yet capable of (even when celluloid is digitally projected).

(20:40 onwards)

[dyll_pyckle]

As if I couldn't like this man any more, he knows his audio history!! He's totally on the money here

[adrianghandtchi]

He’s a professional, who realizes that digital is the tool to the creativity that he needs for himself for his craft. We all can appreciate the multitude of ways that the tools that are disposal with media can be used

[albertskoften]

I think this is the first time I've ever heard this man laugh.

[NicoleHam]

How he’s literally by all definitions the filmmaking “dinosaur” in any room and yet stays so fresh and open to anything is beyond me. Mf is just so chill and doesn’t give a shit. I can’t not stan..

[phantom.wreath]

Man goes from "I love film" to "It's a nightmare!" in about a minute 😂😂

[Lanooski]

Lynch, Rodriguez and Deakins have provided the best cases for digital filmmaking; elsewhere the lo-fi movement has been making the case for homespun art for half a century.
I adore celluloid and will champion those try to preserve its usage in blockbuster filmmaking. But it’s not so pure that I’d think less of work that isn’t shot on it.

[thespenserdavis]

Because so many of us grew up watching his films, and he's the man behind so many of the classics we came in contact with at a younger age, I think we incorrectly think that he's "old school." But he's actually rebellious when it comes to the old way of doing things. He craves agility, but also works best when there aren't restraints - and it makes sense that he'd preach digital, since he plugs into his style so perfectly.

[waitingforgodot]

I love David Lynch so much. What a character

[EustaH]

Lynch has 100% the point. Most people praise the authenticity of film stock footage, but they are rarely aware of problems that come with shooting on it, and they are PLENTY.
- 35mm film stock is monumentally expensive, as well as cameras for it, and they are so power hungry, they practically always require to be connected to external power source. The are much bigger, and heavier and therefore require more expensive gear, and don't fit in many places digital cameras do - all of this require putting much more work into planning and production design.
- Film is less sensitive to light which means that A LOT more consideration has to be put into lighting, making using household grade lights impossible - if they are present in the shot, their light has to always be faked with expensive lighting gear.
- You have limited means of examining the footage on set - and it requires another set of expensive gear.
- It needs expensive and time consuming chemical development that can always go wrong.
- Editing on film is a whole new level of complex - e.g. reversing footage either flips the image or require cutting and reordering frame by frame. Adjusting speed require making multiple photocopies, and list goes on, and of course it requires specialized gear - that's way nobody does that, even if the movie is shot on film, it's scanned, edited digitally and re-projected back to film. Speaking of which....
- Any computer assisted VFX, not only CGI but even simple compositing require scanning the footage and re-projecting it anyways.
- Because the entire industry has switched to digital long ago, all of the above is order of magnitude more expensive than it used to be.

All of this literally requires millions of dollars and months of additional time to achieve an effect that can be 90% accurately reproduced using a vintage lens and degrading footage in post with a ready made plug-in like dehancer for less than 0.1 % of the cost.