• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

Do you prefer Film or Digital Cinematography ?

N

Neutral

Note that this is not a "which is better" thread, so don't flame other's opinions on this.

I do prefer the look of Film, but I think that it is such a pain working with it. I mean, I have to scout of film stock on the internet, try to find the best price on them, be careful not to expose them to light, and send them of to a laboratory for processing. Not to mention that since I prefer the telecine process, instead of editing film the linear way, I have to have it converted to a digital file for use on my computer. I'm not trying to scare anyone off from using film, but I want them to understand that it is a costly method.

I used to really hate the look of digital, I mean, before I wouldn't even consider using it on anything. But I discovered this camera, the Panasonic AG-dvx100. I was really impressed by it's decent price, it's look (which has a strikingly similar look to film, due to it using progressive video to record motion, instead of interlaced)
I also loved the use of miniDV, I like the cheap cost factor of the MiniDV, as well as having a physical storage medium for my video's.

Another reason I switched over to digital for making short films is that it grants me a larger number of retakes, at an extremely affordable price (I'm a perfectionist).
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
When I go to the theater to watch movies, with big budgets, FILM, all the way... dude, have you seen The Master ? It looks GORGEOUS... There is not digital camera on the planet and beyond that can get that kind of picture.

But on a much more modest scale... yeah well, I don't think we really have a choice. Digital is the only option for me. Film is way too expensive at my level. Although, the day I get really serious about this shit and go for my first feature, I might think about it when building my budget.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
It really depends what kind of level you're talking about. I love shooting film - I simply love the look of it. When budgets allow, I shoot film as much as I can. If you've got a good crew around you, it's no more work or hassle than shooting digital (it can just cost more).

I'd rather shoot with the 'hassle' of film, than shoot on low-end digital cameras (like a DSLR) any day. I enjoy shooting on the higher-end digital cameras, mostly the Alexa more than the others.

Film also allows you to have a 'hard-copy' of all of your film, rather than simply a multitude of files. I love the latitude and the feel of film. I'm happy shooting Alexa, but I also think that film adds an extra layer of discipline - not only does the crew take it more seriously (as if it's a 'real' film), but there's the added discipline that you learn if you've never worked with film before that eventually carries over to all your filmmaking efforts. It's a discipline that IMO is vital. Unless you're David Fincher and you're paying your crew properly, you can't do 99 takes, even if it is digital. Film forces you to rehearse until you've got it, then nail it in a couple of takes. It's better for the crew as you move quicker, or you move on when you've got it rather tha doing 'one more for safety' 30 times. It's also better for your editors as they don't have 100 takes to try and sift through.

IMO anyway.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Digital. Not just for the ease it offers, but I actually prefer the look.

ETA: I prefer the look of high-end digital cinema cameras like the Alexa, though even some DSLRs and lower-end cameras have a look I really like.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I like the looks of older movies, like movies from the 60s to 90s, compared to today. I think it's because of computer color grading, while back then they chemically process the film. If they could make digital look like older film, than I could properly compare which one I like better. I know they have computer technics to try to make it look like older color correction but so far I don't like it as much, and still prefer the older looks.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Films of that age look different mostly because it was older technology. These days, we have incredibly fast, clean film stock which means the stock has as little grain as ever, and have as much light sensitivity as ever, so you can use lower powered lights, open up your aperture more etc.

Back in the day, at least in say the 60s, you're talking about film stock with ASA's (ISO) of 25 being the fastest speed film available. This means you need a heap more light, which has all sorts of consequences on the look of a film.

These days, we now have digital, which is even faster than film, and even cleaner (less grain), at least at the top end. Digital has it's own issues, of course.

Digital looks different to film. The Alexa looks similar to film, and the great man Roger Deakins prefers the Alexa to film, at least for now. But, for an untrained eye to suggest that, say, the Alexa looks better than film is saying it simply to join a bandwagon. Add 35mm grain onto Alexa footage and you can barely pick the difference. That's why it's so popular in Hollywood - it's like a film camera without the cost and hassle of actual film stock.

The great part of digital is now we have all sorts of cameras with all sorts of different looks, and it means that we have essentially a larger range of 'stocks' to choose from to affect the look of the image, depending on what the story calls for. A dark, gritty thriller might call for S16mm shot on 500T, rated at 500, a clinical type film might warrant a RED Epic, a 'found footage' film might really lend itself to say a DSLR or a C300, and a period piece might look great on 35mm with 250D stock rated at 160.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Interesting. That's another thing I don't like now is more shallow focus, since directors are using lower powered lights now. I think it's too shallow nowadays and just looks overdone. I went to see Side Effects and it was just irritating to me, how shallow it was. There were several scenes where two characters were hardly far apart, and one of them was in focus, and the other was so blurry, even though they were frontal shots, where we would be looking at their faces more, as oppose to something like OTS shots. It was distracting me from the story.

I re-watched From Russia With Love as well recently, and that movie has the depth of field I prefer. I guess I would choose a grainier but sharp look as oppose to really shallow focus. With digital nowadays of course you can have less grain, and deep focus if you choose too, with more lights. But since no current movies I've seen are doing the style I like, it's hard to compare whether I think that digital looks better than modern film stock.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
jax_rox said:
Digital looks different to film. The Alexa looks similar to film, and the great man Roger Deakins prefers the Alexa to film, at least for now. But, for an untrained eye to suggest that, say, the Alexa looks better than film is saying it simply to join a bandwagon. Add 35mm grain onto Alexa footage and you can barely pick the difference. That's why it's so popular in Hollywood - it's like a film camera without the cost and hassle of actual film stock.
Click to expand...

This nails exactly why I prefer digital to film. To me, grain is a negative. Do you see grain in real life? No, you don't. Grain reminds me that I'm watching a movie. It's a barrier to full immersion. Eliminate the grain, and I can get that much more invested in the story I'm watching.

High-end digital, like the Alexa or the Sony F65 or the Red Epic, is just a whole lot cleaner, which I prefer.

I think we hold on to film and prefer it because of nostalgia more than objectivity. (Interesting aside: "nostalgia" was originally a clinical diagnosis...)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
cameronchapman said:
This nails exactly why I prefer digital to film. To me, grain is a negative. Do you see grain in real life? No, you don't. Grain reminds me that I'm watching a movie. It's a barrier to full immersion. Eliminate the grain, and I can get that much more invested in the story I'm watching.

High-end digital, like the Alexa or the Sony F65 or the Red Epic, is just a whole lot cleaner, which I prefer.

I think we hold on to film and prefer it because of nostalgia more than objectivity. (Interesting aside: "nostalgia" was originally a clinical diagnosis...)
Click to expand...

Dude... have you seen The Master ? No Arri can get close to that kind of picture.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
cameronchapman said:
This nails exactly why I prefer digital to film. To me, grain is a negative. Do you see grain in real life? No, you don't. Grain reminds me that I'm watching a movie. It's a barrier to full immersion. Eliminate the grain, and I can get that much more invested in the story I'm watching.

High-end digital, like the Alexa or the Sony F65 or the Red Epic, is just a whole lot cleaner, which I prefer.

I think we hold on to film and prefer it because of nostalgia more than objectivity. (Interesting aside: "nostalgia" was originally a clinical diagnosis...)
Click to expand...

To each their own. Personally, I really enjoy the dynamic range and colour reproduction of film. And the grain of it, at least to me, gives it a certain 'feel'. Alexa and RED and F65 are very 'clean', but to me that's not very 'motion picture' - it's almost like it's too realistic for a movie.

But, as I said before, all the different looks of the cameras that are currently available really lend themselves to being able to pick your 'stock' depending on what you're shooting, which is great! There are many who honestly prefer RED to Alexa, Alexa to 35mm, 35mm to anything, or DSLR to anything (mostly cos of the price ;)). That doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong, by any stretch. For myself, I certainly have my preferences, but I prefer to craft a look around the film I'm shooting, rather than force my own preferences onto a film regardless of how it should look.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Films are becoming more of a legacy and kind of brings the old day memories back. As a kid I used to really like ECN colors. But yeah, certainly its digital all the way.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The market has pretty much already decided what is going to happen. It is my understanding that no-one manufactures film cameras any more (except maybe the very specialized and large format ones) and I also think that only Kodak manufactures film stock.

Now, there will still be cameras around for a long time, well cared for they should manage many thousands of feet. But someone, somewhere, owns the last film camera ever made!

In another generation or two of sensor technology, with a bit of post processing, we will be able to make it impossible to tell the difference.

And +1 for the SxS documentary, it's interesting to watch.

CraigL
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
cameronchapman said:
I think we hold on to film and prefer it because of nostalgia more than objectivity. (Interesting aside: "nostalgia" was originally a clinical diagnosis...)
Click to expand...

That's what I've always thought of it. Kinda like people saying vinyl sounds better than CDs..... no... it just doesn't.... but I can see how if you grew up with that, you'd prefer that sound
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
mussonman said:
That's what I've always thought of it. Kinda like people saying vinyl sounds better than CDs..... no... it just doesn't.... but I can see how if you grew up with that, you'd prefer that sound
Click to expand...

No, that's not true. Vinyl doesn't sound better than CD or even than MP3. Fair enough.

But film resolution is for now still superior to digital resolution. Not to mention some other benefits (like dynamic range).

Nobody holds onto something that's way more trouble than the alternative if there are only downsides. Vinyl sound different than CD because Vinyl have flaws that make the sound unique. And some people like that un-perfect sound because it gives it another dimension.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
CraigL said:
The market has pretty much already decided what is going to happen. It is my understanding that no-one manufactures film cameras any more (except maybe the very specialized and large format ones) and I also think that only Kodak manufactures film stock.
Click to expand...
Film is expensive to manufacture, so hopefully less competition means Kodak can start making some money again. Also, film cameras may not be made anymore, but realistically - they don't need to be! There's only so far you can get with the technology of a film camera, and it only makes sense to put an R&D budget into the 'future' of digital filmmaking.

mussonman said:
That's what I've always thought of it. Kinda like people saying vinyl sounds better than CDs..... no... it just doesn't.... but I can see how if you grew up with that, you'd prefer that sound
Click to expand...
This is not an apples and apples comparison for two reason:

1) Vinyl sounds different to CD, and many would argue that, in fact, vinyl sounds better.

2) CD is certainly more 'high fidelity' than vinyl, is higher quality and does away with the imperfections of analogue recording. This is very different to digital vs film. Digital has caught up a long way, but film still beats out digital in latitude (dynamic range), colour reproduction (with the possible exception of the Alexa) and physical resolution. 35mm film can be scanned at 4k-6k, 65mm can be scanned at 6k+. And, unlike digital sensors, film has full resolution in all colour channels. If you shoot in 5k on a RED Epic, the 5k is an amalgamation of the Red, Green and Blue channels. On film, you get 5k of the blue channel, 5k of the red channel, and 5k of the green channel.

Film is not for everybody, and it doesn't suit every production, but it's certainly not a matter of digital being objectively better, as when it comes down to it, film still beats out digital in a number of aspects. Eventually, I'm sure digital will beat film in terms of what it currently has over it. But, IMO people will still shoot film for the aesthetic (assuming there's enough of a market to keep Kodak and a few labs in business - there's still a hell of a lot of productions shooting film at the moment). It is an artform we're talking about, so realistically you could say it's like drawing something with a pencil versus doing it on Adobe Illustrator. Sure, on Illustrator you can use whatever colour you want, and you can scale it to be whatever size you want, but using a pencil has a certain aesthetic to it that some people will/do like.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
TheArtist said:
Nobody holds onto something that's way more trouble than the alternative if there are only downsides. Vinyl sound different than CD because Vinyl have flaws that make the sound unique. And some people like that un-perfect sound because it gives it another dimension.
Click to expand...

Right. Because of nostalgia.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I've never worked on film so right now due to costs and ease of use I love digital but I found a company that rents 35mm cameras in Columbus and would love to just try shooting on film at least once just to say I have.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top