the question that haunts film makers, film or digital?

[nigel101]

I get emails saying shot your film on 35mm or 16mm or just film man!, but it costs too much, after watching American Movie I had a look around for Bolex and saw you can get a cheap one for 100 pounds compered to the ARRI SR1 or 2 which is like 4k to hire one.
But then again film it self is expencive.

Or

You I could buy a Xl1 or PD150 go digital, then maybe if someone buys it they could spend the 50k to transfer it to film. With digital you can shoot take after take, but then in short "its not film".
But lol i could go on all day, your digital camcodra is a asset so if you get bored or low on money you could alway sell it.

I hear a lot about Robert R, and his $7,000 movie, but that was over in Mexico USA where its cheap anyway, I dont think anyone could ever match that in the UK on film anyway, maybe on digital....who knows.

Just before i go, i remember Robert R in one of his docs, says how HD is going to be the new revolution and kids getting brought up on it will expect better quiality pictures and cgi packed, this is pretty much true in one way as now twenty years down the line all of the new star wars are digital and everyone seem to have gone cgi fu*kin mad.

[BlakJakDavy]

I would settle with a high-end dv cam - sony's dvcam series are good if you have the cash...What I have is a Sony optura 30 minidv, and the quality is amazing....blew me away after using a vhs-c for so long. This camera with a neutral density filter (which I have to get soon) will approximate film for a very affordable price. I don't have the filter yet, but even without it, if I custom set the exposure it comes out amazingly well also. If you have editing software that can do brightness, contrast, hue and sat, you can give the final footage an extra slight nudge in the right direction. To see a video taken with this camera with no filter and automatic settings, click here: http://www.matt.echowave.net/uploads/Ou ... ootage.mov

[negusproductions]

I use a high end DV cam and use film look filters like magic bullet. Looks and moves just like film.

[Epsilon]

That question doesn't haunt anybody... Film means you have money. Digital means you don't!

[Jass Films]

Unless it is HD.

[Epsilon]

True. But then again, I don't have a whole lot of money and I still have HD.

[nigel101]

HD as in DVX 100a? i think thats the camcorda anyway i know im going to get my head bit off but what is the differents between that camcorda and XL1, they both have 3 CCDs, but i hear DVX looks more like film. but they both shoot at 24p NSTC versions. thanks

[BrownCowStudios]

Epsilon, I believe you have HDV, not HD. There is a difference.

HD as in DVX 100a?

DVX100a is not HD.

what is the differents between that camcorda and XL1, they both have 3 CCDs, but i hear DVX looks more like film. but they both shoot at 24p NSTC versions. thanks

You're thinking of the XL2. The XL2 offers interchangeable lenses, while the DVX offers better gamma controls.

[Epsilon]

Shhhh..... there's no difference... :shh: ...:2confused: ... :silenced:

[SgtPadrino]

that was over in Mexico USA where its cheap anyway

Mexico and the USA are two very different countries there buddy.

[Ornsack]

Learn your craft on DV. Work your way up. You don't wanna be practising how to make films on film.

As nice as film is, and as much as I'm really REALLY desperate to shoot stuff on film, I'd stick to what you can afford.

And after all, film is on its way out.

[windog]

i have a Sony PD170, It is better than film!!

[pan-modo_pictures]

Don't attempt to buy a film camera because you will end up broke and with nothing. Sure, you can get an older 16mm arriflex for the price of a high end consumer camera, but thats just the beginning. You have to buy film, get that processed, and I assume transfered back to mindv, vhs or whatever. Plus, you will need to get a lightmetre, and the other good accesories film brings.

Just buy a decent digital camera, and practice. If you enjoy it that much and think you have talent, go to film school. There you can use, and properly learn how to use film.

32mm and Pro HD are basically the same price now. It all depends on your fancy. Many filmmakers like digital, it allows them to be more creative and is an easier, faster job. On the other hand, 32mm has a certian look and feel, that can not be mimicked. HD may be better quality, but film has something else.

What Im trying to say is, to properly use film at your budget would be impossible. I assume you are relativley new to filmmaking, but to learn the craft now, on film, is insane. Digital is perfect. Besides if you attempted to use film now, you would probably end up with the same quality as a higher end mini dv camcorder.

[BrownCowStudios]

32mm and Pro HD are basically the same price now. It all depends on your fancy. Many filmmakers like digital, it allows them to be more creative and is an easier, faster job. On the other hand, 32mm has a certian look and feel, that can not be mimicked. HD may be better quality, but film has something else.

Erm... it's 35mm, not 32mm...

[Theshapecool]

DV is better than film! with filters and such, there is no diffrence anymore.

[wildabeast009]

I would never agree that DV, even HD, is better than film. The quality and feel of film is unbeatable. Of course, I won't be filming on actual film for a good while, I don't have even close to enough money. Hell, I'm just trying to save enough money to buy a digital camera right now.

[camiziodeltoro]

people who think dv is better than film, have not the slightes clue what they are talking about.

[Theshapecool]

well thats not much of a post really is it. Like Epsilon said, if you have film it means you have money. I dont care what anyone says, DV when using the right filters and processed the right way looks identicle to film, There are hollywood films shot in DV that people didnt even realise. The quality is better, the sound is better. Its digital! digital is indeed better, I mean hello people/ ITs much safer buget wise. why go to the lenth of spending a ton of cash on film just to have film, when you can get the same results with DV.
People who say 'film has that little something' dont really have much to back it up, chances are you have seen that 'little something' plenty of times on DV.
DV poses a big threat to film anyway, as its on its way out. If film was better, why is it getting used less and less? DV is better for low budget amateur film makers anyway, it gives them the chance that they wouldnt of had when film was in its heyday, and that heyday is over. The line between film look and DV only lies in things like grain and gamma manipulation, Which can all be layered onto your cheapest dv camera in post production. There isnt really an argument here, Most of the time people love using film to make themselves feel big. Its one of the only ways to get away from the feeling that your making a home movie, because if your using film, Its gotto be big. DV has the upper hand, no contest. The editing prossibilities are so much bigger too.

[BrownCowStudios]

I don't even want to count how many ways that's wrong...

[Theshapecool]

well go on then, List the problem and tell us all whats wrong with what I'm saying. like your last post 'people who say dv is better than film have no clue blah blah blah', and now you say this. sounds like your the one who dosent know who their talking about, you cant just critisise without justifying it. thats pathetic.

[SgtPadrino]

Film, DV, HD, they're just mediums. Film looks and feels great, but it's nothing compared to the clarity of HD and you can fake the film feel with DV anyway. I'm just saying that the mediums really don't matter if you've got the talent to make your material work. DV and HD allow you to work at a much more advantageous pace, as well as the fact that editing is usually simpler while film tends to be more cumbersome and slow, yet yields good results.

Face it - it's a fact that film is indeed on its way out, and when it comes down to it that's a good thing for everybody out there who wants to make it, but lacks the cash to shoot on film. And that's the reason that I'm so confused why so many of you are saying that film is so much infinitely better than DV, because I seriously doubt that any of you have shot on film anyway.

[BrownCowStudios]

well go on then, List the problem and tell us all whats wrong with what I'm saying. like your last post 'people who say dv is better than film have no clue blah blah blah', and now you say this. sounds like your the one who dosent know who their talking about, you cant just critisise without justifying it. thats pathetic.

Christ, I didn't know everything had to turn into an argument. But first of all, I guarantee you I know what I'm talking about. If I'm unsure of anything that I say, I make it clear that I'm uncertain.

I dont care what anyone says, DV when using the right filters and processed the right way looks identicle to film

Yes, the "film look" (god I hate that term) can be mimicked with filters, lighting, cinematography, and post processes. But you'll still be faced with the problems digital presents. For example, contrast ratio. DV has a terribly difficult time trying to expose to variable light intensities within a frame. If you expose to the highlights, you lose detail in the shadows. If you expose to the shadows, the whites burn out. Film can handle this much easier.

There are hollywood films shot in DV that people didnt even realise. The quality is better, the sound is better. Its digital! digital is indeed better

Yes, people at home on a standard definition TV set won't be able to tell, but on the big screen, it is blatantly obvious. Film has MUCH higher resolution than DV.

The quality is better? Care to elaborate?

The sound is better? Then why, on these "Hollywood DV films," would these professionals record the audio on a separate device? Why, if the sound on DV is so great, wouldn't they just record it straight to tape?

I mean hello people/ ITs much safer buget wise. why go to the lenth of spending a ton of cash on film just to have film, when you can get the same results with DV.

Reasons mentioned above.

People who say 'film has that little something' dont really have much to back it up, chances are you have seen that 'little something' plenty of times on DV.

The "film look" in general can be mimicked on DV, but film has its obvious aesthetic advantages, and DV has its obvious financial advantages. Film has a major leap in resolution, tonal range, and depth of field.

DV poses a big threat to film anyway, as its on its way out. If film was better, why is it getting used less and less?

Film is on its way out, but not because of DV. HD is to blame. It's is the new revolution that will get rid of film, though I still believe film will be around for aesthetic reasons.

DV is better for low budget amateur film makers anyway, it gives them the chance that they wouldnt of had when film was in its heyday, and that heyday is over.

We all agree on this. Learn the craft on DV, then when the budget allows, move to film or HD. DV allows mass amounts of experimentation without a drain on the wallet or time.

The line between film look and DV only lies in things like grain and gamma manipulation, Which can all be layered onto your cheapest dv camera in post production.

Grain works for some, others hate it. Gamma manipulation is a must, whether going for a "film look" or not. It doesn't end there though. As mentioned earlier, film has a more pleasing contrast ratio, a shallow depth of field, increased resolution, etc. Things that can't effectively be done in post.

There isnt really an argument here, Most of the time people love using film to make themselves feel big. Its one of the only ways to get away from the feeling that your making a home movie, because if your using film, Its gotto be big.

Why would anyone in their right mind blow their money on film just to boost confidence and ego? That just isn't logical. How can you get away from feeling like you're making a home movie? Work with a larger crew, establish connections, hire a cast (that doesn't consist of friends), buy/make equipment (dolly, jib, steadicam), and other various things to boost production value. If you have to do this to boost your own self-worth, then you shouldn't be in this field... you'll get your a** kicked...

DV has the upper hand, no contest. The editing prossibilities are so much bigger too.

Well, uh, they don't still edit film by splicing reels together. It's really not much different. If anything, professional productions have the upper hand in editing: more flexibility, hired professionals, multiple insights, better equipment, etc.

[SgtPadrino]

I think he was talking about HD with the "Hollywood DV films." There's a HUGE difference between HD and DV - they're not the same just because they're both digital, remember?

[Ornsack]

DV is better than film! with filters and such, there is no diffrence anymore.

That's sooo, so wrong.

Even when normal DV is filmed through a proper cinematic lens, printed on to 35mm film itself and played through on a TV, it still doesn't look like film.

The nearest you can get to film through digital means is using HD. But even then, it doesn't look like film until it's printed on to film.

I love the look of film soooo, so much.

[wildabeast009]

I watched Open Water the other day, I don't know which camera it was filmed on, but I could immediatly tell that it was not filmed on film. I don't think that not using film on a large budget is bad, it can look great. I've never shot a movie on film, I don't want to. That's only because I would screw up and, I'll admit it, I'm not even near good enough to even try too shoot on film. That doesn't mean I never will, though. The "question" doesn't haunt me. Really it just depends on wether you have money, have experince, and have a want to work with film. It's all personal prefence. To me though, I just like film.