The Pros & Cons Of Film Vs Digital: Featuring Robert Yeoman

[rand thompson]

The Pros & Cons Of Film Vs Digital: Featuring Robert Yeoman


By In Depth Cine

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

I agree with most of that, if not all of it. I loved that 7213 footage though. That's just beautiful stuff. The Alexa footage looked rather flat compared to it. And maybe that's our problem. If we didn't compare, we might not really have any opinion at all. Maybe the criteria should simply be that the image should not look like crap.

I respect every DP's choice, even if I may disagree with some or all of their reasons. What you choose to shoot on is your professional decision - that is part of why you were hired. But for a DP to say that there is nothing more to say on the issue, or that we don't need to discuss it anymore, or that only story matters - that is disingenuous. If lenses matter, then why don't cameras matter? Makes you think.

 

[dio Zafi]

I agree with most of that, if not all of it. I loved that 7213 footage though. That's just beautiful stuff. The Alexa footage looked rather flat compared to it. And maybe that's our problem. If we didn't compare, we might not really have any opinion at all. Maybe the criteria should simply be that the image should not look like crap.

I respect every DP's choice, even if I may disagree with some or all of their reasons. What you choose to shoot on is your professional decision - that is part of why you were hired. But for a DP to say that there is nothing more to say on the issue, or that we don't need to discuss it anymore, or that only story matters - that is disingenuous. If lenses matter, then why don't cameras matter? Makes you think.

+1

love shooting on film...and the added knowledge of film helped me get most of my jobs out of school..(about 5 years ago)

love digital too..(red great cam)

I shoot on both about 60-70 percent film the rest digital

 

[Marc Wielage]

I agree with most of that, if not all of it. I loved that 7213 footage though. That's just beautiful stuff. The Alexa footage looked rather flat compared to it. And maybe that's our problem. If we didn't compare, we might not really have any opinion at all. Maybe the criteria should simply be that the image should not look like crap.

I think you can make digital look closer to film (in terms of level and contrast) than you think. It doesn't have to look "flat" per se -- that's just what one colorist did.

Check out Steve Yedlin's side-by-side comparison and see if you can see the difference. I've been doing this for 42 years, and I couldn't. Note that I spent 22 years at Technicolor and 2 at Kodak, so I've been around the block a bit.

http://www.yedlin.net/DisplayPrepDemo/DispPrep_v2_websize_20mbps.html

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

I think you can make digital look closer to film (in terms of level and contrast) than you think. It doesn't have to look "flat" per se -- that's just what one colorist did.

Check out Steve Yedlin's side-by-side comparison and see if you can see the difference. I've been doing this for 42 years, and I couldn't. Note that I spent 22 years at Technicolor and 2 at Kodak, so I've been around the block a bit.

http://www.yedlin.net/DisplayPrepDemo/DispPrep_v2_websize_20mbps.html

I probably should have been clearer: the Alexa footage that was 'flat' was strictly footage shown from one production in that video. I have seen lovely images from Alexa productions, obviously. I remember watching Exorcist: The Beginning, and thinking, this film looks a bit so-so. It turns out it was 35mm.

I have seen that Yedlin video. You can indeed match colours precisely under most conditions. He does not discuss the side-effects of digital capture, which cannot usually be fixed with a LUT, but he is right as far as he goes. You may be familiar with Fujifilm cameras and their film simulation options?

 

[PatrickWebb]

I think you can make digital look closer to film (in terms of level and contrast) than you think. It doesn't have to look "flat" per se -- that's just what one colorist did.

Check out Steve Yedlin's side-by-side comparison and see if you can see the difference. I've been doing this for 42 years, and I couldn't. Note that I spent 22 years at Technicolor and 2 at Kodak, so I've been around the block a bit.

http://www.yedlin.net/DisplayPrepDemo/DispPrep_v2_websize_20mbps.html

I can agree with this also. Digital capture has come a long way. I also think that Film has its place. Again, as Yedlin discusses, the choice of using a camera type is technical, albiet a creative one and shouldn't hinder the decision making process to choosing the right tool for the job.

However, you can really do a fantastic job or recreating some of the film looks, if one feel so inclined to do that. Again, there is much more to the argument than just the Film VS Digital debate. It comes down to then entire production and post-production pipeline and the decisions made through each of those variables. I feel like I can achieve a very filmesque look with my Epic X / Scarlet X by just choosing different types of glass and filters, along with stylistic modelling of the light and it doesn't feel to me to be this "digital look".

I feel also, that the digital cinema cameras can also provide a different quality than the ENG and consumer type cameras, which often feels like some 4K+ with sharpness applied, which gives that "digital look". I have used the BMPCC4K for some time and one can achieve beautiful images as well as some ultra sharp shots.

The argument can continue that film eventually becomes digital anyway. Especially when watching on a mobile device or computer monitor. It is sort of a "nowhere to go" debate now. Unless, of course, you roll that film from the camera through a film projector ~ there is your purist experience there. I guess that is the dilemma of the Cinema situation: providing the infrastructure for showing movies in Film and in Digital.

I don't feel the sadness or frustration some might feel about this; naming the classic Tarantino's and Deakin's debate. I just see it to be an option that could depend on cost and availability. Yeoman mentions that the concentration levels are just different when shooting film vs digital ~ and as that might be true in some cases, I feel like that is just one perspective from many. Really, it is all expensive and if someone is on the set checking their phone and not concertinaing on the job, then they should probably check themselves out the door or put the phone away. Everyone should really be respecting the job they have and realise how lucky they are to be working in such a great industry.

Nevertheless, I hope that film, as a medium, stays with us and that Digital can take us places no one has ever gone before ~ which it has proven countless times, again and again. Not to say that Film hasn't done this in the beginning and up till today!

I would be pretty happy to work one day with film, but it just isn't within reach for my type of productions at the moment. I am not even sure where I could get it developed in Norway anyway. I am sure that if it does happen, then I will have a bunch of operators and techs that should know this information.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

I feel like I can achieve a very filmesque look with my Epic X / Scarlet X by just choosing different types of glass and filters, along with stylistic modelling of the light and it doesn't feel to me to be this "digital look".

I absolutely love the MX sensor. As a camera the Epic MX still holds up today. It's now ten years old. If you want value, there is no other camera that can match it.

 

[rand thompson]

Cinematography Style: Darius Khondji


By
In Depth Cine

 

[rand thompson]

Film Vs Digital in 2021 - Can you tell the difference?


by Artlist

 

[rand thompson]

Going Dark: The Final Days of Film Projection (Documentary 1080p)


By
The Documentary Network

 

[rand thompson]

Film vs Digital: The Big Debate || Spotlight


By
CookeOpticsTV

 

[PatrickWebb]

You're not wrong, Karim. I will share a post in the scarlet post shortly.

 

[rand thompson]

Film VS Digital | Video Essay


By Toby Kearton

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

Film VS Digital | Video Essay


By Toby Kearton

I think I agree with the last statement in that video. Sadly, I can see a future where all the problems that plague digital will finally be addressed. I shouldn't say 'sadly' because normally I'm enthusiastic for technological progress. But, this is different.

 

[rand thompson]

Karim,

I love the digital image of Red and Arri. However, even though I have never used Film for motion capture, only for photos, I think no amateur or professional cinematographer ever wants it to go away. It's like owning 75 and 45 RPM records or a high-end Reel-to Reel setup, sure there are probably CDs and 320kps MP3s to replace them but it's just the physical actions of placing the needle on the surface of the record and threading the reels through the player that you will really miss.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

Rand, I absolutely want film to remain. But if there is no reason to use it, if it does not have a unique selling point, then it's over. You only need one technical advantage - just one. For me, it's the way it handles light sources. No Red or ARRI camera to my knowledge can handle light sources properly. I'm talking about traffic lights in dim light, that kind of thing.

One thing that I do believe for sure: digital is superior for b&w. Show me the same b&w image taken on film and digital and I won't notice the slightest difference. You do need film emulation, but b&w is an easier equation to solve than colour.

 

[Mike Krumlauf]

I feel like if you were to ask which was better ten years ago, almost everyone would say Film. Digital was still finding its place, 2011 we still had features shooting on cameras like the genesis and f900. 2010-2019 I feel like that decade was the one were digital really came into its own and now in 2021, on all economic levels of filmmakers, you can get a tool and make some pretty convincing film emulating images. When I was in high school in the early 2000s, My dream was to shoot on a Panaflex or an Arricam with Kodak stock. Now in my 30s, that dream has converted to being able to rent Panavision glass for my RED tied with owning an ALEXA of somekind one day. Unless I win the lottery, I dont really see a reason to shoot film, even though I love its look. I can get pretty damn close to it via color grading with the tools available and the sensitivity of my RED. I mean, when i had a Sony F23, F900, and Panavision Genesis for a short while I was getting results via grading that looked pretty damn close to film. I guess what im trying to get to is the post tools have advanced so well that you can make a 20 year old digi cam look like film with little effort and on top of the camera sensors improving as well, if you use modern cameras and editing tools its a win win.

The irony is I have a feature that I am trying to get into production that I wrote during covid and one of the big things im trying to do is shoot it on film given the film has large amounts of flashbacks in the late 80s and 90s set in Chicago. I think films set 20+ years ago should be done on film... take a look at Michael Mann's Public Enemies. Shot on F23s.. looks like garbage, i think so anyway..

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

Mike, I am not sure that I agree that film should be used for films set prior to 2000. However, specifics aside, you have a point. You could argue that at most you should do a film-out. It will save you agonising over LUTs. Digital isn't ready to take over yet, but, perhaps Judgement Day is inevitable... ;-)