Yet again, the debate about which is better, film or digital, has broken out on a forum site for film owners. Following is my input into the debate. I wanted to post it to my blog as I feel my DJ analogy was insightful (to may anyway) so want to share it to a wide audience.
(Background on thread. Debate on if digital can archive the quality of film, especially at low light.. The performance of the new Canon 5DmkII was mentioned)
—–
To ad to Julio’s points.
The camera he is talking about is the Canon 5DmkII.
Currently this camera is making a mess of the digital film camera industry. I know Sony, JVC etc are all running scared.
They are literately selling 5x what they expected on this product. It’s success has changed the industry completely.
This camera makes all there 50-100K kit all seem obsolete. Tho , there is more to a camera then a sensor. (But strangely many people cannot see past that. Ie form factor, the package etc.)
Now, Nikon will likely bring out a competitor at the November show for Pro still cameras. And.. the Nikon has even BETTER low light performance then the canon.
In the Stills world, Film is totally been abandoned apart for the niche areas where some aspects of film still produce desired results that digital cannot. However, this is not common, and a very expensive way forward.
This will of course happen in the motion film area too. I am a little surprised it has taken longer then it has, however, as I have said, there is more to taking a shot then the camera, its the camera man too. This is a generation thing more then anything else.
I have noticed that film-tech seems to be an ivory tower with man holding onto the romance of film. Personally I don;t care. I am a computer tech that has drifted into the doing digital side of exhibition. I just observe and based on what I see, make conclusions.
Film is simply out of date.
I like to compare it to DJing (For which I did for 10 years when I was a younger lad) evolved from vinyl records to CD’s or other forms of digital playback..
At the end of the day, the punters on the dance floor didn’t really care if it was vinyl or CD, the story that was the track was shared and they enjoyed it.
Tho the debate between DJ’s was heated and went on for years. Today, the top DJ’s basically never use vinyl any more.
WHY, well as I like to point out, what sounds better is not really the issue here. The main reason they don;t use vinyl is because vinyl has limitations. While digital has Blue sky. The DJ’s, though the use of digital, have created new playing styles and performance possibilities. Impossible with vinyl.
This holds true for Film as well. Film is dead to me as.. it simply cannot evolve anymore. But once we are digital, the sky is the limit. Night shots that are impossible using film. etc.
One of my favorite would be a new standard of 60fps for cinema. Can be easily converted down to any common distribution format in use today, and would make a film screen, using clean digital images, look like a window into the world that the film creates. Something film grain, scratches and gate movement can never do.. (60fps for film is possible, but like 70mm unrealistic anymore. too $$$$$$$)
So, to me. Film, please leave the building, its time to ignite the booster and leave orbit, and you don;t have a ticket.)
To finish of, I would like to also visit the definition of what make one better then the other.
If we want to talk about which can be better.
Many of you say, film looks better…. if your looking at an answer print compared to 2k. But then again, apple with apples, there are 8k digital systems out there. That would even arguably compare with 70mm.
If we talk about the typical image a widely distributed film presents on screen compared to 2K.
A typical 2K system will ALWAYS look better due to the massive lossy process the film has to go through.
So which is better. What is possible or what is typical??
Please take this into consideration.
James
2 responses so far ↓
1 Rob Sandifort // Sep 3, 2009 at 12:26 am
Dear Mr. Gardiner,
I came to this site because an old friend from Australia started a new job selling DCI movie projectors and 3D equipment (in Sydney). I didn’t know the first thing about digital cinema, but having worked in the (Australian) filmindustry for many years I’m still kind of interested in new developments.
Well, the more I find out about it, the more it saddens me and the more I feel alienated from a medium I used to love.
There’s no point trying to explain this to people like yourself either.
You wouldn’t understand the beauty and mindboggling precision of a Panavision or Arriflex camera. You’ve probably never even seen one. Or appreciate the magic of an image appearing after you develop it. An actual picture that you can see and not a piece of plastic junk that stores electronic information.
It would be like trying to explain that a real flower is actually nicer even though a plastic one has brighter colours, looks like the real thing, doesn’t need water and lasts much longer.
What do you mean when you say “film, please get of” and “the sky is the limit with digital”.
What limit ? Film has been around for a hundred years and better movies won’t be made just because they’re digital. Unless your understanding of better is more wanky special effects.
It’s all about more efficient distribution, more money and cold numbercrunching.
Soon photographic fim will become unavaillable but as long as it isn’t, i’ll keep playing with my Graflex 4×5 inch camera and produce pictures that are of better quality then any digital box of tricks, even with 70 year old technology !
Best of luck, Rob Sandifort (the Netherlands)
2 JamieG // Sep 3, 2009 at 10:19 am
Hi Rob,
I to have had an extensive career in film. I worked on the original Kodak Cineon project. I part owned a post production facility film and TV for 15 years. I was involved in building our own in house film recorder. We have film cards litted around our workshop from those days.
I can understand, what appears to be your romantic connection with film. I personally only see it as a means to an end. A hammer on a builders tool belt. One of many tools used to archive an objective.
To a film maker, it is not the tools one should focus on, but the story and visualising to a distribution medium as best as can be. Celluloid, Digital, whats does it matter. Its only a tool.
Objectively, tooling at celluloid compared to Digital tools, digital is now objectively gives the film maker more advantages at better costs then traditional film.
Digital Stills photography passed this point years ago. Ask any professional photographer. This is obviously happening/happened to motion picture film making to.
Digital is the tool of choice “NOW” for those who know how to use it. It is not a matter of costs, tho that is now snowballing the issue.
Many film makers choose DI post as it gives them the knobs they want to twist. Film has less flexibility.
In general, in exhibition, a film shown in digital looks better then celluloid. Yes, film can be made to look better, but then again, going to super hi res 16k across images in digital is also possible but not doable.
Film has its qualities and can no longer evolve, while digital is likely to evolve beyond film (And has already in many ways) plus can evolve at little cost as.. in a computer, writing a new program or taking advantages of new developments does not mean you have to through out all the current technology (Like you need to with film. Ie a 35mm kit is not very compatible with a 70mm kit)
Yes, when you develop film and it appears before your eyes and you can fell and touch it. That is magic. With digital you don’t feel it, you imagine it. And your imagination has no boundaries. That is amazing…
James
Leave a Comment