MovieChat Forums > Side by Side (2012) Discussion > does "film" really have a different "loo...

does "film" really have a different "look" than digital?

posted 9 years ago by TxMike
20 replies | jump to latest

Embedded in many of the threads here is the assertion that in spite of all the advantages of shooting digitally, "film has a look that digital can't match." And the assumption that the film "look" is superior to the digital look.

I don't know if this has ever been explored in a real, scientifically-significant test. To do so you would need some sort of double-blind test of the same scenes shot both ways. Viewers would then view and evaluate each set of scenes without knowing if each had been shot digitally or on film. That would be the only way that one could actually settle the issue.

Does anyone here know if that has been done?

..*.. TxMike ..*..
Make a choice, to take a chance, to make a difference.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] CelluloidAdmirer 9 years ago

I might have found another example. Have you seen the trailer for the new Johnny Depp movie, Mortdecai. It appears to be shot with anamorphic lenses but it doesn't say what it was shot on.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TxMike 9 years ago

filmdust, that is interesting. I watched and "evaluated" each before I looked up the tech specs.

GAMBLER: softer image with muted colors, shallow DOF.

INHERENT VICE: brighter colors, more contrast, more DOF, sharper image.

Just based on that I would have guessed incorrectly which one was film. I suppose it just shows that each medium can be manipulated easily to give the filmmaker the look she/he wants.

Still, my earlier comment stands, the only way to tell if there is an inherent difference is to have the same DP "film" the same scene(s) twice, one each with digital and film, making sure the same amount of contrast, saturation, DOF, etc are used, but NOT attempting to make digital "look like film". That would be an interesting comparison.

..*.. TxMike ..*..
Make a choice, to take a chance, to make a difference.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TxMike 9 years ago

It is an interesting topic. I'm still holding out for the "blind test" of digital vs film on the very same scene(s) by the same DP. If we view two scenes that are made to look as much the same as possible, with film and digital, does the average movie-goer prefer one over the other? Or does it end up near a 50/50 split?

..*.. TxMike ..*..
Make a choice, to take a chance, to make a difference.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TxMike 9 years ago

I saw "Blue Valentine" but over 3 years ago, I don't today recall anything about the cinematography.

I will keep on enjoying good movies regardless of how they are "filmed." 

..*.. TxMike ..*..
Make a choice, to take a chance, to make a difference.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] SomeCreepinaVan 9 years ago

If you couldn't telk Inherent Vice was film, than I really question your judgement. The Gambler had terrible waxy flat look cinematography and shouldn't ve used as an example.

----------
If you don't know Bigfoot then you don't know SQUATCH

[–] jimifloydrix 9 years ago

Film does have a look that digital can't match, that's a fact, because they are completely different methods of capturing light. If one of them is better than the other one, that depends on your point of view and what specific part of the film making process you are talking about.
I personally prefer the look of film because it is more classic, familiar, and warm in a way. The crispness of digital images and the video-look of higher frame rates are entirely undesirable to me; other people might say these are advantages.
Again, digital can't imitate film, but each one of us decides whether one is better than the other one.

[–] TxMike 9 years ago

"the look of film ... warm in a way..."

If you are familiar with photography and colors, "warm" has a specific reference to color balance being towards the red/yellow spectrum, whereas "cool" refers to a balance towards the blue spectrum. Adjusting the lighting and processing can result in film being "cool", "warm", or "neutral" relative to color balance. There is no inherent "warm" look to film.

..*.. TxMike ..*..
Make a choice, to take a chance, to make a difference.

[–] jimifloydrix 9 years ago

Thanks for explaining colours to me, I was unfamiliar with those concepts.
It seems that you are so good with photography that you forgot to learn about languages; considering this, I should clarify that the first sentence of this post is sarcastic.
When the sentence reads "classic, familiar, and warm in a way," you have to interpret that the person who wrote it might not be referring to red/yellow imagery, but rather a feeling. It is possible to feel more at home with one type of image than with others, the same way certain instruments and sounds feel more comfortable than others.
Moreover, by comparing that sentence to the next sentence, which says something about excessive sharpness and higher frame rates, you can sort of tell that colours are not the main point of discussion here.
I say all of this because your reply implies that the only talking point was the general colour palette of each medium. Please do not reply to one specific word of my posts next time.
Thanks!

[–] TxMike 9 years ago

I was simply calling bull$#it to your whole post with my reply to it. You have convinced yourself that your "feeling" about film is a real one. It isn't. It is just nostalgia.

..*.. TxMike ..*..
Make a choice, to take a chance, to make a difference.

[–] jimifloydrix 9 years ago

I heard a couple of people talking about this film so I remembered this discussion.
Would you have similar conversations to this one if you were speaking to people in other art disciplines?
Would you tell a sculptor to use metal instead of marble?
Would you tell a musician to use synthesizers instead of pianos and guitars?
Would you tell a poet to write on his iPad instead of his notepad?
Would you tell a paintor to use Adobe Illustrator instead of brush and canvas?

Moreover, by stating that digital can replicate film you are admitting that there is something characteristic about film that digital has to try to emulate. That's what I call a "look."

[–] Chrispy_G 9 years ago

Your comparisons make little sense.

Making something out of metal vs marble is using an entirely different material to make an object.

With film, you are still SHOOTING the same subject matter...you are capturing images, the task is completely the same, it is simply the method.

Your trying to compare making two different objects to performing a task with two different methods.

The same thing with your comparisons. With one, you are physically writing/painting...while with the other, you are creating a digital image.

But no matter what, when you shoot a movie, the task is the same, only the method is different.

Film is the outdated method, while digital is the more streamlined, cost effective method.

Digital > Celluloid

[–] jimifloydrix 9 years ago

The original discussion was not whether digital was more streamlined and cost effective than film or not, it definitely is.

I argued that film is still a valid method (to use your own word) regardless of digital, and that it does have its own uniqueness that is very hard (if not impossible) to recreate digitally.

As for my comparisons, it seems that you ignored writing literature and poetry and composing, performing, and recording music. In those scenarios the final product is technically the same but there are still different methods to do these tasks. My point is that you can't call somebody stupid for using non-streamlined methods nor can you dismiss them as something that can be replicated by computers.

[–] TxMike 9 years ago

Your original statement is, " Film does have a look that digital can't match, that's a fact, because they are completely different methods of capturing light. "

You are the one who introduces the concept of "matching", and that would be like saying a sculptor in stainless steel can't "match" one in marble. Those are trivial, obvious, and meaningless.

All this also misses the main point, which you allude to. It isn't the medium that matters, it is the message, whether it be a sculpture or a movie. So to even try to discuss that real film and digital have different "looks" is meaningless.

If the story, acting, and cinematography are good then it doesn't matter if it was captured on film or digitally. Then by extension the method that prevails will be the one that allows the filmmakers to do that best, most efficiently, most economically.

It has nothing to do with "look" of film vs digital.

..*.. TxMike ..*..
Make a choice, to take a chance, to make a difference.

[–] SomeCreepinaVan 9 years ago

Yes, film has a different look than digital beause its analog. It's harder to notice on a digital projector, but a well shot film shown digitally will always have more realistic skintones and a more natural look. HD CRT projector also look more organic because they're also analog. CRT projectors have no pixels just like film.

A good example is to compard Fast 6 with Fast 7 trailers. Look at the skintones. Fast 7 is shot digitally.
-----
If you dont know Bigfoot then you dont know SQUATCH

[–] Degree7 9 years ago

It's pretty much a no brainer that there is a difference between film and digital photography.

Take a look at the compariosn between these two pictures, one shot on celluloid, and the other with a digital camera. You'll notice a rather stark difference, and how the film has a more dream-like quality to it.

http://www.digitalfilmacademy.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/compare.jpg

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.