Digital cameras or film,who can tell the difference?

[Steve Mcgarret]

Lately i've been trying to determine if theres one thing that makes digital cameras look so good nowadays or does it come down to many factors? Been watching "The Nick" lately and even though I dont own a RED (yet) I know if I walked onto the set and nothing changed except I slipped my Nikon D800 behind their glass instead of the Dragon,it just wouldnt be the same. I know my camera is $3k and a RED is much more K....but im wondering does it come down to bit depth/sensor/processing/compression/codec? My sensor in my camera is bigger than the RED or Alexa but I know its only 1080p. So is that it? Is it just simply resolution that makes those cameras impossible to tell if something is shot on film or digital. Maybe you guys can tell the difference right away but I sure cant. Im not talking about production design/coloring/lighting/glass...I know all that makes a huge difference but what is it specifically about a high end cinema camera that gives it that film look? I've seen the BMCC at 4k with Zeiss glass and it looks too video-ish compared to higher end cameras. Why? Sorry if this is all a big stupid question for you guys out there but I keep finding myself asking this same question every time a new show starts. I shoot small documentaries and love my camera and it works for what I do. Just curious I guess.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Dynamic range is a major contributing factor to a "film look". Lack of digital artifacts is another (one reason to avoid shooting compressed 8-bit 4:2:0 video). Resolution. Of course, there is motion reproduction due to frame rate and shutter speed, etc.

But highlights clipping unnaturally fast is generally a telltale sign of a digital camera.

If you love your camera for what you do and it works for you, then what's the problem?

 

[Jake Wilganowski]

Also, the coloring process. Professional deep coloring makes a huge difference. It's much much easier to do this with a less compressed codec.

 

[Elsie N]

Lately i've been trying to determine if theres one thing that makes digital cameras look so good nowadays or does it come down to many factors? Been watching "The Nick" lately and even though I dont own a RED (yet) I know if I walked onto the set and nothing changed except I slipped my Nikon D800 behind their glass instead of the Dragon,it just wouldnt be the same. I know my camera is $3k and a RED is much more K....but im wondering does it come down to bit depth/sensor/processing/compression/codec? My sensor in my camera is bigger than the RED or Alexa but I know its only 1080p. So is that it? Is it just simply resolution that makes those cameras impossible to tell if something is shot on film or digital. Maybe you guys can tell the difference right away but I sure cant. Im not talking about production design/coloring/lighting/glass...I know all that makes a huge difference but what is it specifically about a high end cinema camera that gives it that film look? I've seen the BMCC at 4k with Zeiss glass and it looks too video-ish compared to higher end cameras. Why? Sorry if this is all a big stupid question for you guys out there but I keep finding myself asking this same question every time a new show starts. I shoot small documentaries and love my camera and it works for what I do. Just curious I guess.

I'm not good at pixel peeping and quite honestly, when I'm watching something I usually get caught up in story unless the image has deficiencies that are noticeable. So, no... I can't tell the difference between film and digital if they are both done adequately.

Dynamic range is a major contributing factor to a "film look". Lack of digital artifacts is another (one reason to avoid shooting compressed 8-bit 4:2:0 video). Resolution. Of course, there is motion reproduction due to frame rate and shutter speed, etc.
But highlights clipping unnaturally fast is generally a telltale sign of a digital camera.

If you love your camera for what you do and it works for you, then what's the problem?

My previous statement notwithstanding, my own stuff I shoot I am very conscious of how the image looks and I do become aware of the image more than the story. As David says, artifacts, resolution and motion reproduction are things I try to normalize shooting Dragon. Probably because I've never shot film is why I wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

 

[Jeffery Anderson]

If you're in LA(and I suppose most major US cities) you can watch classics projected in 35mm.

the big argument is the DI(digital intermediate) [where a lot of color correction is done] is telecine'ing the film, so if you can capture a quality better than the Telecine process with a digital camera, then you'll get a more "honest" look at the picture be captured.

the reason I mention "classic movies" and 35mm projection, is because even if a movie is shot on film, it's going though a digitizing(telecine) process and will be projected digitally. So if they obtain a classic print of a movie, then you can watch it on film.

Being on LA -- I've seen Fellini, Kubrick, Bergman, Stone, Kurosawa, Leone(... etc) movies on film. Best thing to do is to check them out for yourself!

 

[Marc Wielage]

If you're in LA(and I suppose most major US cities) you can watch classics projected in 35mm.

Where? Aside from Tarantino's New Beverly Theater in West LA, I think the small handful of reissue theaters are all showing digital, no film. And the major studios and distributors have said they don't want to spend money making new archival prints for revival houses. I haven't seen a projected print at a commercial theater in LA in more than 2 or 3 years.

the big argument is the DI(digital intermediate) [where a lot of color correction is done] is telecine'ing the film, so if you can capture a quality better than the Telecine process with a digital camera, then you'll get a more "honest" look at the picture be captured.

I think it's fair to say that pretty much all of the handful of motion pictures still shot on film are edited digitally and color-timed digitally. Usually there's still a lab color-timer whose main job is to make sure the prints stay consistent, but the question would be how many prints are they really making these days? As far as I know, the vast factories that used to make mass-release prints in North America are all closed now.

 

[Steve Mcgarret]

Thanks for responding guys. David,thats the answer I was looking for.Cheers. Yes,I do love my camera,I was really just curious and always wanting to learn more from people who have more experience then me.

 

[Robino_J]

Where? Aside from Tarantino's New Beverly Theater in West LA, I think the small handful of reissue theaters are all showing digital, no film.

You can watch classics in 35mm and 70mm everyday of the week in L.A if you go to these places.

American Cinemateque in Hollywood
Aero Theatre (also from American Cinemateque)
Cinefamily
LACMA (Bing Theatre)

Much better than seeing 2k blow up to a "LIMAX" screen at AMCs...

edit: ok once in a while for 70mm

 

[Marc Wielage]

You can watch classics in 35mm and 70mm everyday of the week in L.A if you go to these places.

I'd bet all those theaters also have digital projectors. There's good digital, bad digital, and there's good film and bad film. I've been to several film retrospectives at the Cinerama Dome, and the projected film print quality was atrocious -- tons of weave, jitter, bad color "breathing," you name it. Don't assume that just because it's film, it's going to look good. I'd worry a lot about how well the projector is maintained, how good the lenses are, how good the specific print is, and many other factors.

There's also been some extremely good 4K restorations going on out there of some film classics, and some have wound up looking very good. One that's making the rounds right now is The Beatles' A Hard Day's Night, timed by Sheri Eisenberg at Colorworks in Culver City. Great-looking film. I don't think it looked this good in 1964.

The handful of AMC theaters I've been to in the LA area (like Woodland Hills) are using Sony 4K projectors, and they do a big song-and-dance fanfare prior to the start of the feature. I agree, I'm not a fan of Liemax, but they are actually showing true 4K when the studios make that option available.