MovieChat Forums > Side by Side (2012) Discussion > My counterpoint to anything pro-digital....

My counterpoint to anything pro-digital...

posted 12 years ago by dvdcdr
26 replies | jump to latest

An artist should worry about his art. Not himself.

Take two frames from the same DP. One shot on film, on shot on digital. Two things are likely true:

1) The frame shot on film looks better. It has better highlights, richer color and texture.

2) The frame shot on digital is probably closer to the author's intent. If time is no issue, the DP had every little hair and prop lit exactly the way he wanted it. He was able to truly paint the image in realtime.

Second one sounds better, right? Here's the problem. The first frame still LOOKS better. And all the audience sees is the final frame...they have no idea what was going on in the DP's head.

Here's the reality...if you cannot put a good image up on screen that is story-motivated, and is largely close to what was in your head...then you are not good at your job.

The rest is arbitrary. This narcissistic notion that the filmmaker's "vision," down to every minute detail, is the only way to make the film completely escapes me. It is criminal to sacrifice the overall quality and texture of the image so your backlight hits your actress's earlobe the way you saw it in a dream.

Digital is great for many things. It is great if you have no budget. It is great if you are learning the ropes. It has opened a lot of doors for a lot of people.

But PLEASE...if you are a PAID PROFESSIONAL, and you have a budget, and it is your JOB to put out a quality product......then use the best stuff!!

And the best stuff is film.

[–] Chrispy_G 12 years ago

This argument won't last long. 35mm film won't be much better than film forever. By all accounts, Red Epic cameras shooting at 5K resolution are already very damn close to film.

When it was 2K imagery vs film, sure...film looked a lot better.

Film vs the imagery of Once Upon a Time in Mexico? Film for sure.

Film vs the image quality of Avatar? Not as much of a gap.

Film vs the image quality of The Hobbit? Even less of a gap.

One day digital cameras will be shooting at 10K and beyond, will 35mm film STILL be better then?

Digital is only going to keep getting better. 35 mm film is pretty much where it's at. There are always little ways to tweak it, store it, etc etc but it's pretty much where it's at. Digital is just going to keep improving and improving and improving...the image will be able to capture more and more pixels. It's not going to stop.

"Welcome...to Jurassic Park."
APRIL 5th, 2013

[–] dvdcdr 12 years ago

And if the day comes when digital looks better than film, then I will gladly shoot on that format. But it does not look better today.

I would bear in mind, though, that such a day might not be as close as you think. There is a lot more to an image than resolution. Digital has nowhere near the latitude of film, and does not have the same nuance, quality, and texture.

You mentioned the Hobbit. Personally, I think it looks like s hit. Look at footage of the shire from the trailer, versus the LOTR films and tell me you don't see a difference. They're leagues apart.

Of the current digital cameras out there, I am not completely offended by the Alexa. But the RED looks TERRIBLE. Look at the 4th Pirates film versus the other three. Atrocious.

Digital still has a ways to go.

[–] Chrispy_G 12 years ago

Well, comparing a video on my laptop of The Hobbit trailer vs what The Lord of the Rings looks like on my television isn't exactly an equal comparison.

Also, I'm quite sure that Pirates 4 was shot on the Red One and not the Red Epic. At least, that's what some searching around told me. They are not the same thing.

Digital shooting becoming a 100% equal alternative to shooting 35 mm film on a quality level is probably about 5 years away. Cameras like the Alexa are just the beginning of digital capture matching more of the dynamics of film capture.

"Welcome...to Jurassic Park."
APRIL 5th, 2013

[–] MultiVitamines 12 years ago

> And if the day comes when digital looks better than film, then I will gladly shoot on that format. But it does not look better today. I would bear in mind, though, that such a day might not be as close as you think

But will those company still make films (I mean the media)? They stop making film cameras.

[–] tcob44 12 years ago

Digital is just going to keep improving and improving and improving...the image will be able to capture more and more pixels. It's not going to stop.

Two things: First, let's hope once digital is indistinguishable from film to the naked eye it stops. I mean, yeah sure, technophiles and mindless consumers love buying the newest e-gadget flavor-of-the-week, but seriously, who wants to keep having to completely re-familiarize yourself with the latest and greatest technology every six months, you know what I mean? And second, are you actually saying that the pixel ratio is eventually going to get down to the MOLECULAR level? Because, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what film goes down to?

[–] dvdcdr 12 years ago

I_am_Chris:

Two youtube videos. 1080p youtube. Similar type of settings. Watch the outdoor stuff in the ROTK video, versus the shire/outdoor shots in the hobbit trailer.

LOTR: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxN2Mewamj0

Hobbit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTSoD4BBCJc

The hobbit footage looks flat, plain, and cheap comparatively. This causes extra problems with a period/fantasy piece. It makes you feel like you are on a set. Jackson used the RED because he wanted to do the films in 3D. That's fine. But for argument's sake, the standalone image is nowhere near the quality of film.

As I said, if the day comes when digital is an equal alternative, I will have no problem using it. But I do not live in a hypothetical future, I live in the reality of today. And film is far superior.

[–] stazza 12 years ago

Us discussing on the back end doesn't matter.
The AUDIENCE doesn't care one way or the other, and THEY are the only reason these movies are getting made.

If some pro (as mentioned) can't make whatever format it is LOOK GREAT, that is their fault, not the mediums. Digital is not going away.... can't say the same for FILM cameras... how many "instamatics" and "Polaroids" are outselling the point and shoot digital cams these days? None. Yes, a small group of nich buyers get them for that "film look" photos - that is so easily and way more flexibly recreated in digital (cough instagram cough)... so, do you want a VW bug or a Ferarri F1 RV for the same price as the bug? The answer is obvious, like it or not.

BTW anyone ever compare snapshots you took on film 20 years ago with todays cheapest digital cameras? It is incredible how far we have come.

[–] dvdcdr 12 years ago

Sorry, stazza...but you can't ignore the medium you are working with.

Give a visual artist a box of crayons, and tell him to make a masterpiece. He will do a great job, the piece will have a lot of great qualities, but it will still look like crayon. Same thing goes for digital.

And I am an audience member. I care. I am paying ten dollars to see a movie. I want it made with the best stuff possible. Just like when I go to a restaurant and order a 40-dollar filet mignon, I better be served the most tender cut.

Do the masses care about film vs. digital? No. But why would we use the masses as the metric for what is good? Judging by box office receipts from transformers and such, the masses don't care about stories or characters either.

[–] stazza 12 years ago

You can't make film look perfect like digital without a lot of work, which probably includes scanning it IN TO digital anyway, but you can make digital look all filmed out if you desire. There are more options in digital. the 15% missing color palette* compared to actual film, is not seen, noticed, nor cared about by the audience for whom the project is created for: to extract people's money. There is NO OTHER REASON for movies to play than to make money. A count of the world's free movie houses: zero.

*total wild guess since I am not geeky enough to know the actual spectral differences, except to know that average people never notice the difference.

If it was about the art, there'd be thousands of free movie houses (other than private in home viewings) and maybe even street corner projectors playing movies for people... then again, even the street musician has a hat out for "donations".

We use the masses as the metric because that is who the medium caters to. That is why things ARE going digital: it is easier, faster, more profitable.
PERSONALLY, I hate the look of film grain and the slow 24fps rate. Some will call that better looking than clear, better contrasting, 120fps digital display.
I work in audio and we underwent this whole debate decades ago. Yet some still claim dragging diamonds across heated plastic sounds better than sonically perfect bytes. Music marches on digitally and STILL sounds great.

I remember when projected movies were cool,
I remember when you could buy 15 minute 8 or 16mm movies to project at home,
I remember when color TV dropped in,
I remember when Betamax then VHS hit,
I remember capacitance discs,
I remember Lazer discs (Still have some)
then digital theaters
then DVD
then BluRay

and on and on.

BECAUSE I can personally remember all that, I also remember it keeps getting better and better each time. Can't wait for 4K to drop :)

[–] dvdcdr 12 years ago

he 15% missing color palette* compared to actual film, is not seen, noticed, nor cared about by the audience for whom the project is created for: to extract people's money. There is NO OTHER REASON for movies to play than to make money.

Really? There is "no other reason"? So art, passion, craft, entertainment doesn't factor in at all? It may be a cold, cynical world we live in. But it is not a world of 1's and 0's. To think that the people making the film, and the audience, and often even the studio heads don't care about the quality of their product is completely naive.

I realize it is, foremost, an industry. Believe me. If you want to talk numbers, then let's talk numbers. The cost of shooting on film compared to the budget of a studio movie (those movies that care sooo much about money), is completely insignificant.

Johnny Depp is going to get paid 116 million to do Pirates 5. The notion that the studio would even notice the cost increase if they were to shoot on film is laughable.

I remember when projected movies were cool,
I remember when you could buy 15 minute 8 or 16mm movies to project at home,
I remember when color TV dropped in,
I remember when Betamax then VHS hit,
I remember capacitance discs,
I remember Lazer discs (Still have some)
then digital theaters
then DVD
then BluRay

What you are talking about my friend are consumer products. Home viewing. The discussion here is about the industry standard. Something that consumer products, by their very nature, have never been on par with.

Now with each generation of technology you mentioned, consumer products have gotten closer to the industry standard. But guess what...not one item on your list is an equal imaging technology to film. I am not tooting film because I miss it. It's just better.

Every industry or craft has different gradations of quality and different gradations people who care. For some, a youtube video shot on a digital camera is enough entertainment. And that's fine. But you always need your filet mignon. Your hall of famer. Your prized purebread. If we lose film, we are losing the gold standard of the dominant art form of the last century. And that would be very, very unfortunate.

[–] stazza 12 years ago

true, I was citing consumer stuff. but to me it ends up being the same: what I am looking at and how well it looks. My home plasma looks better than theaters now, detail, color, contrast etc... I see a lot of movies, maybe 1 a week or so, and am slowly getting tired of poorer quality look in theaters. Expendables last night was grainy and dull. Most films I've seen at the theater are that way are grainy and dull (different theaters around the country btw). and I sit near the very back so I am not subject to blown up size and screen reflection light.

anyway, I don't see the filet mignon anywhere. where can I see that now days? the stuff I see doesn't look any better or worse than digital or home stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Films_shot_digitally
Of the films I've seen that were shot on digital, I don't recall any of them being odder, or worse than film, or even different at all enough that it took me out of the movie going experience. Now the STORIES, on the other hand, are a different matter. :)

I agree film has "more" resolution than digital, and probably more colors I'm not a deep tech on that, but how is that better when it looks grainier (less real), less contrasted (directors decision?) next to its digital equivalent?

This whole issue (digital vs film, not you vs me) reminds me of my audio world where people say TAPE sounds better than digital, when REALLY tape is very faulty and innaccurate in it's recording. To make digital sound like tape, you just mix it so it has the same type of failures. :)
Also the FRAME RATE discussions: 24fps has been around forever because that is what people can tolerate AND keeps cost of film down. Now, technology can allow better frame rates and even top movie directors are endorsing it like Cameron and Jackson. Wouldn't THEY, who make the world's top grossing films, know what they are asking for? AVATAR was filmed digitally. Did it suffer because of that? (it suffered on PLOT for sure, but not due to the medium)

I'm all for embracing whatever comes next. Some other people are not and there is nothing wrong with that. I just can't see the "LOSS" you are speaking of. And only the end product is all that matters, and if this loss is not perceived there, what is the difference?

Film will ALWAYS* be around. One can still go buy a polaroid camera and film someplace only if they want to take pics that are bad for nostalgic reasons.
I'd rather have options to digitally make them look old, or perfectly clear than not have that option.

*I guess always is over stating. Afterall, you can really by wire recorders or wax phonograph cylinder cutters anymore. Even record players are getting hard to come by. So, maybe "always" is not the reality.

BTW I consider this fun to discuss and know we probably won't really change each other's minds here on the internet, but at least it is nice having a reasonable discussion over this, unlike most discussions found here on IMDB :)

[–] tcob44 12 years ago

One can still go buy a polaroid camera and film someplace only if they want to take pics that are bad for nostalgic reasons.

Except for the fact that those film pictures have a higher image quality than digital pictures...

[–] dvdcdr 12 years ago

Haha, well I think you and me might find some common ground in my original post. The end product is all that matters. My problem is that a lot of filmmakers that use digital will concede that film looks superior, but use digital because it's easier and because they want to fiddle with every last inconsequential detail in their frame. To me, that's selfish and lazy. Your responsibility is the film and its audience, and if there is better technology realistically available to you, you should use it.

Now whether or not film actually looks better can be debated forever. At the end of the day, you can never be completely objective about aesthetics. I want to bang Kim Kardashian, the guy next to me might be into Rosie O'Donell. Why that is so escapes me, but I guess neither of us is more right than the other. But consider this:

You mentioned a few times that cinema is meant to capture reality, but is that its goal really? Think about the way a film is constructed. In reality when two people are having a conversation, do we magically appear and reappear in two spots watching them? Is time and space compressed and expanded in real life? When we do something cool, does music suddenly play in the background? Even look at a digital frame from a movie: when we look at something in real life, is everything in the background so drastically out of focus?

Film is a painting of reality. A distorted portrayal. The entire sense of authorship about it comes from the fact that what you are looking at isn't actually real. If not, everything would be a documentary.

When I want real life, I live my own life. When I want a unique experience, enveloped with a sense of mystique, I go to the cinema.
--

Now, if you don't notice any difference in quality...that's completely fine. But I do. And you should make your product with as much care as possible so it holds up to scrutiny from your popcorn joe to your cinephile, and everything in between.

The Lord of the Rings example I used before is perfect. In ROTK, the environment looks mystical and textured and lush. In the Hobbit, the same setting looks flat and cheap.

I'm curious what your theater is projecting, because most theaters have switched over to digital now. The shooting format remains mostly film, but a film projected digitally will have faded blacks. Or if you are still projecting film, your projectionist is not taking the proper care, or the prints have been overused. Film needs care and admittedly will decay over several weeks and months in a movie theater. But projection is a whole other argument...

[–] stazza 12 years ago

yes, we totally agree: Kim Kardashian. as long as she didn't speak at all. :D

Our theaters mostly digital - if not all the chain ones, and we have a few art house hold outs that show both. quality is all over the place everywhere I have been: midwest mostly, some costs, north and south. Would be col if they FOLLOWED some standard instead of whatever I see out there. But, I still go anway, hoping for a big screen and dim room and popcorn adn all that... I support the efforts in big theaters, as well as buying the DVD/Blurays.
If it gets bad (usually sound) I go find the teen running the place and ask them to fix it.

I'm kinda picky and feel I do see a DIFFERENCE (not better, maybe not worse sometimes) from film to digital, but mostly in blow-out, fuzziness, grain, and less contrast on the film side. Maybe I'm wrong but this is who things look to me over the tighter, sharper, crisper digital stuff.

What I've seen of The Hobbit looked fine, not better or worse really - didn't distract me from watching or thinking about it. I'm sure if I were to really scrutinize I could see the flat you speak of, but since it didn't jump out at me, I didn't notice anything wrong or bad.

But everyone is allowed to like what they like. Many can't enjoy 3D or just don't like it, I wish everything was filmed in 3D now :) The depth just adds to the visual presense.... to me

[–] tcob44 12 years ago

My home plasma looks better than theaters now, detail, color, contrast etc

Except it doesn't look better in regards to resolution. That is, unless you are talking about digital projection theaters.

[–] stazza 12 years ago

"Except it doesn't look better in regards to resolution."

That should be the case totally yes. But my personal, unofficial experience with seeing the same movie on big screens then at home, it looks as good resolution wise. I don't see jaggies, I don't see moire in tiny mesh fences... I'm sure it is there compared to film, but I can't see it - and my vision is 20/10 or something really good last I checked... and I tend to sit too close to my 60 inch, which is not the proper thing to do.
So, if one can't SEE the difference in resolution (theater to home) does it really matter if the spec is equal or not? To me, it does not, as long as the end result looks great, which BluRay on a large properly calibrated screen does.

I am NOT saying bluray has better resolution than actual films, oh no, I am saying if you can't SEE an obvious difference, there is no problem.

And like I said, I will be first in line to get the 4k TV when they are released, and whatever media to play on it. Can't wait. Is 4k equal to film? No, but it is closer, and definitely a step up from VHS's resolution of 333x480 or whatever it was. :)

Seeing as I can not realistically afford a full sized movie theater projection system in my home (yet;) I have to stick with what is the best available currently.

Back to making movies... if RED and the other cameras are still in buisness, SOMEONE thinks they work great and keep buying them. And the movies made on them are fine. The format doesn't make a difference if the movie itself sucks or not, that is plot, script and directing. Film doesn't look "Better" just different. .... kinda like when you go to a big super store and see the wall of 100 TVs all on the same channel, the BRIGHTEST one "looks" like the best one compared side by side next to the other "inferior" looking darker TVs. Yet in 100 cases out of 100 that brighter one is blown out, colors are whacked and it is not calibrated for accuracy. Where as the darker one is calibrated, looks closer to the source, and will last longer and not melt due to overheating. ;)

It's perspective and perception.

[–] JohnFK 12 years ago

I am NOT saying bluray has better resolution than actual films, oh no, I am saying if you can't SEE an obvious difference, there is no problem.

With 35 mm output you can resolve about 800 lines of resolution, BD is around the same (at somewhere between 2.35:1 and 1.85:1; closer to 2.35:1).

That 35 mm has a huge resolution at output is a complete myth, it doesn't. 2K actually looks sharper. 4K blows it out of the water entirely. What 35 mm has is very good resolution at the raw film level. If you scan it, you can probably resolve more lines up until something like 8K. The thing is, though, you can't output that with 35 mm. To take advantage of that resolution, you have to output it digitally.

[–] stazza 12 years ago

Sounds about right. The HD I've messed with was 1920x800 doing a 2.40:1 aspect ratio.

What freaks me is when the movies are filmed and I SEE the "Grain". I don't see grain in digital pixels (you can see dots when up close and it is not blended well) but SEEING grain is like low resolution to me... I'm seeing chucks of chemistry on the film where I'd rather see colors that make up the picture... I don't want to SEE the physical film, I want to see the visual movie represented on it.

And I've seen grain recorded digitally so that tells me the resolution is just fine in digital.

[–] tcob44 12 years ago

BECAUSE I can personally remember all that, I also remember it keeps getting better and better each time.

But look at music. Soundwise, cassette tapes are inferior to vinyl. But tapes are more convenient. Then CD's came along. Soundwise, CD's are STILL inferior to vinyl, but they're better quality than cassette tapes. So here you have two music mediums that were newer, but NOT BETTER QUALITY than the first. Just more convenient.

[–] stazza 12 years ago

do you mean soundwise your particular PREFERRED listening? Because the low end and high end loss in vynil makes it unlistenable to me. I loved it as a child as it WAS the best there was at that time...until it wore out and you had to buy the record again.

Records sound fine other then the lack of full frequency fidelity, static, dust, skips, speed issues, warps, hair, ware and tare, rumble, feedback, hum.....
You realize EVERYTHING coming off a record has to be complete RE-EQUALIZED just to fix vinyls inadequacy, thorugh a PREAMP that who knows how fault THAT part could be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_curve
Records are not close to source. I don't hate records, I loved them. But there is much better out now.

[–] tcob44 12 years ago

do you mean soundwise your particular PREFERRED listening... But there is much better out now.

No, I mean the best digital mediums are still inferior to the best analog, for overall sound quality.

[–] stazza 12 years ago

audio wise, I will dissagree having worked behind the mixer in studios AND as a recording artist. seeing as I've read about tons of blind tests with other professionals that can't tell the difference between this or that AD/DA system, and I personally hated 15 and 30 inch per second TAPE even with DOLBY SR on it.... it STILL had "hiss" and I could hear the fidelity loss on the low and high end. I mean, how "real" is a sound that is a positive or negatively magnetized particle bleeding onto nearby particals, stuck to overheating and constantly stretching plastic tape scraped across a an electro-magnet, then to be re-equalized by the preamp and re expanded after having been originally compressed onto said tape? That doesn't seem any better than carving plastic vinyl or wax with vibrating diamonds. And tape also adds its won irreverable compression and distortions wrecking the recording even further. EVERY tape does.
That is no better than copying soundwaves into digital waveforms written as bits and bytes except the digital media does not wear out, loose speed, drop frequency etc....

and, well, vinyl is "listenable" and I grew up enjoying it, but better than digital? Not even close. Just DIFFERENT sounding or "color" due to the forced EQ curve, the crazy requirements to CUT masters (which I have done for my records) and then you suffer all the stuff I posted above: static, ware, warp, flutter etc etc etc
Sound? It sounds very OFF to me... like a symphony where half the instuments are out of tune or having temp problems.

But, enjoy whatever you enjoy. It's a free world. :)

This all relates to digital film as well... same thing: is there REALLY any better or worse of a prcess consisting of the voodoo magic of optically changing colors of tiny cheical particals stuck to again more overheating, melting, stretching plastic, that wares out, gets dull, breaks, melts, fades over time and even decays... verses the voodoo magic of coding colors into a digital picture via optical process into a electronic receptor... but THEN it does NOT suffer all the issues of the above film list.

[–] tcob44 12 years ago

Digital is not going away.... can't say the same for FILM cameras... how many "instamatics" and "Polaroids" are outselling the point and shoot digital cams these days? None.

But Instamatics and Polaroids aren't going away either. They are merely being outsold, simply because of ease-of-use, not because of the superiority of digital.

[–] DanneJojanson 12 years ago

The hobbit footage looks flat, plain, and cheap comparatively.

You're not taking into account that the trailer for The Hobbit probably doesn't have the finished color grading. I agree that it doesn't look quite up to par (though not too far off either), but compare it to the first trailer for The Fellowship of the Ring, and you will see that the Shire shots aren't properly graded there either, and doesn't look half as good as it does in the finished film. We won't know how it will turn out until december, when the finished film is out.

The original trailer can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIgkpEgCV-I

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] quirkyrecords 12 years ago

Great post.

Personally I hate the argument that the audience don't care, but it's not that they don't care, its that they have no idea of how to tell the difference.

Film is art, and appreciating art is often subconcious. Many people will like or dislike a film based on story, plot, acting etc but the visuals or sound have a huge influence even if they audience don't realise it.

At the highest level, where money is no cost, where you need a big camera and crew anyway, regardless of whether it is film or digital, there really is no reason to shot on digital other than stylistic reasons.

And as a loader, I can testify that it is quicker for a good AC to change a mag than you can restart a RED every time a batter goes flat.

I dare any layman to watch Public Enemies and argue it looks better than any other hollywood film shot on film.

I still love watching 16mm, watch Moonrise Kingdom if you think film is dead. You just can't recreate that look with digital, it is nothing to do with resolution.