DIGITAL X FILM
Where does everybody stand on this? I personally am sick of the digital vs. film debates.
They both have a certain very useful look for certain circumstances, time periods and feels and I would like to utilize them both, sometimes in the same film (I like mixed media to enhance aesthetics).
Film is more archaic and painterly. 35mm works well with period pieces for that reason. 16mm has that great, gritty, grimy documentary "mean streets" aesthetic. 70mm and IMAX looks absolutely stunning, like heaven from a projection booth.
Digital, however, does capture a certain coldness well and is gritty in its own way. DV can look like 16mm and HD can look close to 35mm if exposed and manipulated well enough. The Red Cameras will only make digital even more favorable and I hear the Japanese have already developed a digital video technology with quality and resolution that rivals IMAX. This technology will get better and much more widespread quick, but I think film may always exist for those that like shooting like oil paint today.
They both have a certain very useful look for certain circumstances, time periods and feels and I would like to utilize them both, sometimes in the same film (I like mixed media to enhance aesthetics).
Film is more archaic and painterly. 35mm works well with period pieces for that reason. 16mm has that great, gritty, grimy documentary "mean streets" aesthetic. 70mm and IMAX looks absolutely stunning, like heaven from a projection booth.
Digital, however, does capture a certain coldness well and is gritty in its own way. DV can look like 16mm and HD can look close to 35mm if exposed and manipulated well enough. The Red Cameras will only make digital even more favorable and I hear the Japanese have already developed a digital video technology with quality and resolution that rivals IMAX. This technology will get better and much more widespread quick, but I think film may always exist for those that like shooting like oil paint today.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Andrew Despres - TwinAnkhs Productions on -
They both have their place. I actually use them together for many projects. Sometimes I had a hard time deciding which to use, but recently it's always video, sometimes film. Then again I am not like most people - so here is generally what I do - depending on the type of material being recorded.
For example:
Let's take a difficult event like a woodstock for example- musical, and real-time. I would like to use film, but it's not a requirement, depending on crew size, etc I might be limited:
1.) Digital is basically low cost- high quality recording. Since shooting with digital I now always use the sound from the HD cameras, and separately recorded audio on an HDD recorder. Doing this also gives you an audio and video backup if the film camera fails and you just need the event recorded in real-time (concert of a music video). Since it's a real-time event and can't be re-shot 100 times to be edited like a feature film. As a rule of thumb for live events I use the film cameras if the footage is good. If not I use the Digital cameras's footage. Recording it this way gives you television video switcher style capability. You have a steady stream of video, and patch over the video with film when possible. With most film you are really time-limited so it's not possible/feasible/cost effective to have film going all of the time. Super 8mm has at least a 10 second changover time between rolls. 16mm means an even longer changerover time. Times how many camera angles?
2.) Aside ADD thought: Don't bother with a nagra machine on site, they will just malfunction on you. (I know from experience wanting to throw it out the window) Either DAT, DA-88 or ADAT, HDD recorder or a computer to record audio, or use on camera sound for digital video. Reel to reel's don't do well outside a studio envrionment, and they are not needed in the film world anymore, we have timecode DAT. Also recording to a Nnovia is a good option as well.
3.) Film has the ability to fail much more easily than video, so don't rely on it unless shooting a motion picture film, and you are shooting with multiple cameras. If you have lots of money to spend on film stock, a big consideration is that usually means huge budgeting. Super 8mm is the lowest form of MP film and it costs about $15-$25 per roll for 3 minutes. And you haven't developed it yet!! What if it gets scratched during developing? Uh-oh!! 16mm is $29 for about 5-8 minutes, and 35mm is probably $50-$60 plus for that length of 8 minutes. Remember for every 60 minutes of footage, there is about 4 minutes usable (per camera angle) so how much is going to waste??
4.) That being said, I do most of my own developing of motion picture film for B+W, and Color Ekatachrome. Kodachrome needs to be sent to Dwaynes photo+video because the processing chemicals contain cyanide. I don't even want to think about touching that, do you??
5.) You have to wait for the film to be processed, or in my case, to dry, hopefully dust and cat-hair free..... or for it to come back from the lab. Then what do you do?
6.) Next you have to film scan in a $ 500,000 rank cintel, $120,000 lasergraphics machine, or use a marconi or other telecine machine. The cheap way is to get a special 5 bladed projector ($250) and an HD camera ($1000) and DIY. This is what I do, but I am not dealing with 35/70mm large format motion picture film, and it is usually meant to look like a home movie, not a cinema-quality production. The 5 bladed may flicker a little here and there, but usually it works for the most part for 16mm and super-8mm.
7.) Then comes the editing which can support printing back to film or video with the finished product. Avid, Final Cut and Vegas... I think are the only ones which can do this right now....
8.) Pick your final destination format- Lasergraphics has these wonderful machines that cost TONS of money to buy, probably more than my house, and they can print back to film from almost any format with AVI or quicktime. I can burn to Blu-Ray or DVD and hand it to someone, fitting in my pocket. Ever lifted a 35mm print.... it's sooo HEAVY!! Not to mention I need a platter-based projector to play it back on, or a portable 35mm machine (usualy 3 of them) so it can play back without waiting for reel changes.
-
Permalink Reply by Plymouth Community Theatre on -
Andrew, well said.
Latest Activity
Actors Dancing at the Musical Theatre Audition– Some General Thoughts and Guidelines for Surviving the Choreography by Sean Pratt
Here are some do’s and don’ts to keep in mind when preparing for the dancing portion of your upcoming audition.
For man…
© 2010 Created by Plymouth Rock Studios
