Film vs Video Article

[escubria]

Digital will NEVER "be" like film--we all know the ontological arguments for this.

It doesn't have to be, it just has to look beautiful to watch and it's getting there. Digital does not need to have grain like film to look beautiful, but it does need good latitude and high resolution. The stuff I've seen from the RED camera beats a lot of stuff I've seen from many film shot productions.

Digital is it's own animal the same way film is. We still shoot super 8 because it's different, can look good when done right and it's relatively cheap. That same argument could be made for digital, it's different, can look good and it can be cheap. Of course it all depends on what is shot , how it's shot and by whom. I've seen many a super 8 film, 16mm & 35mm that looked awful and unwatchable, I won't name names, the same goes for digital. I've seen Digital stuff that looks wonderful and super 8 too. It also depends on your subject matter and whether film or digital would suit it better.

Arguments that Digital is inferior to Film because you can't shoot Digital using the same techniques as Film are fallacious and dumb, they're 2 different things, so they acquire different approaches.

[themagickite]

Arguments that Digital is inferior to Film because you can't shoot Digital using the same techniques as Film are fallacious and dumb, they're 2 different things, so they acquire different approaches.

if that's in response to my comment about ISO, then i disagree, as both film and video are fundamentally the same in that they both deal with exposing a light sensitive area to light and both have the same factors which determine that exposure.

[escubria]

if that's in response to my comment about ISO, then i disagree, as both film and video are fundamentally the same in that they both deal with exposing a light sensitive area to light and both have the same factors which determine that exposure.

They are not fundamentally the same as one is electronic and the other is chemical. Two different processes requiring differrent techniques. The techniques that evolved with shooting film cannot just be transposed to digital. New techniques will evolve for digital, histograms et al. If you have ever shot digital, you'll know this.

[mattias]

if you don't know the ISO you can't use external metering as the guy in the article found out, and that cuts out a big factor of working professionally.

no, that's actually not what he found out. he found out that he could do it all by eye, not a bad thing at all but rather what most dp's strive for.

video (at present) just forces you to try to make technically acceptable images in my experience.

you're right, but it's not really that different from the film world. delivering a technically "acceptable" neg is one of the jobs of the dp.

/matt

[escubria]

if you don't know the ISO you can't use external metering as the guy in the article found out, and that cuts out a big factor of working professionally.

no, that's actually not what he found out. he found out that he could do it all by eye, not a bad thing at all but rather what most dp's strive for.

Which is how the first cinematographers did it with black and white, though I daresay many mistakes were corrected at development stage. It was easier with Black & White.

[themagickite]

i still disagree, i won't press the point any further after this post, but the fundamentals of all imagery is a lens focusing focussing light onto a light sensitive area, where an aperture determines how much light is focused, a shutter determines for how long, and the sensitivity of the film/image sensor determines the speed at which light is absorbed.

in this respect they are fundamentally the same.

[escubria]

i still disagree, i won't press the point any further after this post, but the fundamentals of all imagery is a lens focusing focussing light onto a light sensitive area, where an aperture determines how much light is focused, a shutter determines for how long, and the sensitivity of the film/image sensor determines the speed at which light is absorbed.

in this respect they are fundamentally the same.

The reason exposure is measured with a lightmeter for film is because the resulting developed film image cannot immediately be seen on set, so it must be judged "invisibly" with the aid of other tools beforehand. With digital the resulting image can be seen immediately and adjusted accordingly, therefore, more can be done without the worry that development adds to a production.

[themagickite]

that makes perfect sense, cheers for the concise explanation, in my opinion though, this can be a very sharp double edged sword, as you can end up doing more judging than shooting, but as i've said before i don't have any kind of professional experience so i can't really comment on that realm, but in my projects i find the instant preview that video offers to be extremely frustrating, worst of all when everyone wants to look at what you just shot, including the actors! but yeah that at least shouldn't be a problem on professional productions.

[escubria]

It's calls for a new discipline for sure, and discipline applies to all professions.

[T-Scan]

I started watching a movie on TV last night that was obviosly shot on HD. The only aesthetic I got was synthetic, or low budget looking. Any shot involving motion of the people or the camera was very video looking. It's not the same.

[etimh]

I started watching a movie on TV last night that was obviosly shot on HD. The only aesthetic I got was synthetic, or low budget looking. Any shot involving motion of the people or the camera was very video looking. It's not the same.

But you can't make a blanket statement regarding the essential qualitative differences between the two, can you? I know you're not making specific value judgements but the terms you use often evoke negative connotations and are used to describe the limitations and the "negative" qualities of the medium.

But consider Inland Empire, for example, a film which very consciously acknowledges and utilizes the specific characteristics of its acquisition medium. The qualities inherent in the video image seem to me to be a very important part of the film's aesthetic and part of what Lynch wanted to say. Not necessarily a "bad" film because of it.

Tim

[T-Scan]

But you can't make a blanket statement regarding the essential qualitative differences between the two, can you? I know you're not making specific value judgements but the terms you use often evoke negative connotations and are used to describe the limitations and the "negative" qualities of the medium.

Well yes, overall it looked cheap. Film and video are 2 different things, and in my opinion video just looks odd when it tries to look like film... because it can come close, with something that looks more like a hybrid of film and video... like a man wearing lipstick or something, it just don't look right.

[themagickite]

like a man wearing lipstick or something, it just don't look right.

that's exactly what it's like, in both cases we've been culturally constructed to perceive them as abnormal. But considering how unnatural both lipstick (even on women) and film production are, the perception of normality is only achieved through cultural familiarity.

looking at it that way, there should be resistance to digital cinema for some time, but then we're all so used to rapid technological change these days.

with more people watching youtube than TV, and digital imagery, editing and delivery becoming cheaper and more accessible for the average joe, if cinema takes an all digital approach to origination and delivery then that will only increase this trend and possibly harm the film industry.

[Mitch Perkins]

Digital is easily manipulated to look pretty much how anyone wants it to look.

If that were true, we none of us could tell the difference between video and film, and there would be no debate.

Had they shot on modern negative stock, they'd most likely be digitizing it anyway and then they'd have to spend time getting rid of the modern look before they could apply a more retro look.

This suggests some sort of intermediary "no-look" look. What is that? A clear screen? What do you have after "getting rid of" the modern look?

Have you been fooling with CC'ing these negs at all recently? I have, and I go straight from one look to the other; no sense trying to reach some ephemeral "absolute neutral" mid-point, since it doesn't exist.

Now, if I want retro 70's look using modern neg stocks, I am one giant step ahead of the chap who starts off using video, for the simple reason that 70's films weren't shot on video.

Even if you want to take the position that shooting on digital takes the same amount of time as film,

I take the position from my readings that shooting video is often ruled out because it would take *longer*. I've actually been on a set where everyone drank coffee while we all waited for the HD tech to come and fiddle with that big box. Tick tick tick...plus, since it doesn't have all that richness of texture right out of the box like film does, it's harder to light.

the post is always faster with digital.

Always? Why?

As an aside: Considering how apathetic audiences are getting these days,

This is in direct opposition to the fact that most all TV dramas, and many high-end TV comedies are film-originated, and that's just for *television*. Why are these networks/producers choosing film origination over video?

Mitch

[themagickite]

if you want a 70's look use 70's lenses, and if possible use 70's film stock. record all the music in a tape studio with nothing but old school analog effects boxes.

"look around you" is by far the best 70's emulation i've seen.