Some can tell the difference and some can't; that's why there's a debate. You and I can tell the difference easily but we work with film on a regular basis. My sisters, my mom, friends and others and even some DPs that I talk to regularly that saw Spy Kids 2, Superman Returns, Star Wars, Apocalypto, Miami Vice, etc had no idea they were watching digital origination. Others I know spotted it immediately. I could be wrong but, 10 years ago or so, I think everyone would have spotted it, so either the audiences are getting more apathetic or the HD tech boys are getting closer to the mark. I think it's a bit of both, which makes me nervous because I don't want audience apathy to be a substitute for a good image.Mitch Perkins wrote:If that were true, we none of us could tell the difference between video and film, and there would be no debate.MovieStuff wrote:
Digital is easily manipulated to look pretty much how anyone wants it to look.
This is why we have HD tech companies telling Hollywood all the time that "it looks just like film" and Hollywood telling them "no it doesn't" but using it anyway, thus providing the funding for more R&D for the HD tech companies. The industry then makes changes and gets better later but they would obviously be happier if the majority could not tell the difference now. So digital can be manipulated to look like a number of things and that manipulation will fool a larger number of audiences now than before.
Regarding post being faster in digital: Cutting on an NLE is always faster than cutting and conforming film. For the commercial arena, I don't really think there's an argument there, do you?
Regarding the use of film on television: The majority of dramatic programs are shot on film because, at this time, the infrastructure is already in place for widespread film production but that infrastructure has more to do with industry politics, union agreements, contracts, etc than technological or artistic barriers. More and more shows are being shot in HD and the industry is obviously moving in that direction because, as noted previously, more and more of the audiences are starting to accept digital origination, for better or for worse.
Regarding how long it takes to shoot digital versus film: You're right. Sometimes shooting digital can add to the length of time on a set but sometimes it can be much faster. My point is that anything that can hurry the process is welcomed by the bean counters and producers, often without regard to the asthetics. In general, I find completing a digital project to be faster than film. Depending on the project, your mileage may vary.
Regarding the 70s look, you might be right about it being smarter to start with film than with digital, I dunno. I do know that I have seen a number of film originated features that were supposed to take place in the 70s and the modern stocks just looked too good, so they didn't look any more authentic to me than Zodiac and possibly less so on some levels. So while you're right that people weren't shooting features in the 70s on video, they also weren't shooting features in the 70s on 21st century film stocks. I was only surmising Fincher's decision as to why he might have shot Zodiac on digital. For all I know, he may have regretted the decision after getting into it and wished he'd have shot on film.
Later,
Roger