the question that haunts film makers, film or digital?

Epsilon · Post by **Epsilon** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:00 am

BrownCowStudios wrote: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.

I disagree with film being easier to handle. The reason it is more cooperative, is because there is a lot more time spent to get it right. With DV you do not have to get it perfect the first time, because you can back up and try again at relatively no extra cost. Both take a lot of preparation to get the scene to look right, but film is just a necessity to get it perfect the first time, as so it more likely appears to be more cooperative. Film is tendent to be less forgiving. Of course, we are comparing on a professional level. You can get a Digital camera to do almost anything you want in terms of exposure. Consumer cameras are different in themselves. Of course it's harder to get the exposures right... they just plain suck. You cannot compare those, professionally.

You don't have to mimick ANYTHING for a "film look" with filters, lighting, cinematography, and post processes... That's the art of movie making, whether you are using film, DV, or the movie capture on your cell phone. The film look is a result of the color tones, softness, and grain of the image.

BrownCowStudios wrote: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.

Depth of field relies on the kind of lens you are using. I've seen depth of field go either way for both film and DV. Film may require more light, and therefore a typically larger apature, but it is still all in the lens.

Theshapecool · Post by **Theshapecool** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:41 am

But with the contrast, aswell as the resolution, that CAN be sorted on DV and HD.
its just down to either settings, post or Stage/set lighting.
I will agree with you on some points but film is no way easyer to handle

BrownCowStudios · Post by **BrownCowStudios** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 5:31 pm

Wow, you guys completely misread that. In no way did I say film was easier to handle. I'll quote myself in saying "Film can handle this much easier" refering to the contrast ratio. No, this cannot be faked on DV. Simple as that. The closest you can get is shooting through an ultra contrast filter, which lowers the contrast of the overall image so the highlights and shadows can both be exposed more easily.

I'll put this into an actual ratio for you here. Video is said to have a contrast ratio of 100:1. Film is 1,000:1. The human eye is 10,000:1. These numbers may be slightly off (it's been a while since I read those figures). Now hopefully you'll see what I'm talking about.

You don't have to mimick ANYTHING for a "film look" with filters, lighting, cinematography, and post processes... That's the art of movie making, whether you are using film, DV, or the movie capture on your cell phone. The film look is a result of the color tones, softness, and grain of the image.

So you're saying I can pick up any sort of imaging device, neglect lighting and cinematic qualities, and it'll still look like film? Bullshit. Maybe I'm misreading something here... The "film look" is MUCH more than just color tones, softness, and grain, though that is certainly a start.

Depth of field relies on the kind of lens you are using. I've seen depth of field go either way for both film and DV. Film may require more light, and therefore a typically larger apature, but it is still all in the lens.

Yes, I agree that it's all in the lens. Hence it's easier to get a shallow depth of field using a 50mm or 80mm lens, while it's nearly impossible with a 28mm or 35mm (unless in macro). The lenses used on film cameras can generate a shallow depth of field much easier than any video camera lens. To get a shallow depth of field, you must use a large aperture and a long focal length (shooting on the long side of the lens). You almost always have to shoot with the lens almost wide open. To do that, you have to use at least one ND filter, if not more. It's simply easier with film. Camcorders simply cannot accept the same lenses as film cameras without a Mini35 adapter. It is much easier to obtain a shallow depth of field shooting on film than on video (Mini35 aside).

Epsilon · Post by **Epsilon** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 1:55 am

You don't have to mimick ANYTHING for a "film look" with filters, lighting, cinematography, and post processes... That's the art of movie making, whether you are using film, DV, or the movie capture on your cell phone. The film look is a result of the color tones, softness, and grain of the image.

So you're saying I can pick up any sort of imaging device, neglect lighting and cinematic qualities, and it'll still look like film? Bullshit. Maybe I'm misreading something here... The "film look" is MUCH more than just color tones, softness, and grain, though that is certainly a start.[/quote]

lol I think you misread my post this time! What I meant to say, using your example: filters, lighting, cinematography, and post processes are not the directly necessary items to acquire a film look. A "film look" is not a result of lighting and cinematography. If you say that, even film used in a poorly lit room won't look like Film!!! You're stating the film look as Everything that contributes to the captured image, which isn't a "film look," that's the art. Eh, we just got something twisted up there between quotes.

BrownCowStudios · Post by **BrownCowStudios** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 3:40 am

Yes, well, I suppose you're correct, technically speaking. Though I'm sure all of use know of the term "film look" and the way the word is to be applied. It is not simply to look like film, but to look like well shot movies. Thought we were all on the same page here.

pan-modo_pictures · Post by **pan-modo_pictures** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 2:10 am

[quote="pan-modo_pictures"]32mmquote]

Oops, what the hell am I thinking!

crossfire · Post by **crossfire** » Sat Jun 18, 2005 12:31 am

The problem with film (film is way better than DV)but unless you have those giant scanners so that you can do SFX, etc. I think DV is better only because it is easier to do special effects but for quality Film is better.

bretoncrackers · Post by **bretoncrackers** » Tue Aug 09, 2005 8:55 pm

wildabeast has a point, ive seen open water, and im pretty sure it was shot on an xl1 or an xl2, and it is immediately noticeable. someone said earlier in this thread that their pd170 is better than film. thats a load of cr@p, it is possible to mimic, but with a prosumer camera, it will never look exactly like film. if you feel like working with actual film and don't want to kill your budget, then try shooting 8mm film and splicing some of your shots together. I think you'll find out firsthand why digital is becoming more popular.

levertuning · Post by **levertuning** » Sun Aug 14, 2005 5:20 pm

crossfire wrote:The problem with film (film is way better than DV)but unless you have those giant scanners so that you can do SFX, etc. I think DV is better only because it is easier to do special effects but for quality Film is better.

I disagree. In big motion pictures, film is always digitalized to add special effects and to add filters and that kinda stuff. There's no way to get that sharp effect on the big screen and on DVD without digitalizing. On the other hand DV can have the same look as tampered film. Just take Once Upon a Time in Mexico as an example. Plus it's cheaper, faster and special effects friendly. The only reason Hollywood isn't using it much is because Hollywood has always been affraid of new and onorthodox methods. It always has to be like the textbook says, even if that book is written ages ago.

I'm experimenting with Magic Bullet suite right now. I'm has some great looks. (by the way if anyone has some pointers for me about Magic Bullet, let me know)

crossfire · Post by **crossfire** » Sun Aug 14, 2005 9:16 pm

i understand what you're saying but they have giant scanners to scan the film onto their computers, i certainely dont have neough money to buy giant scanners

levertuning · Post by **levertuning** » Sun Aug 14, 2005 11:39 pm

That's not the point. The point is that DV can look as good as film. It just depends on lightning and filters.

crossfire · Post by **crossfire** » Mon Aug 15, 2005 12:34 am

maybe the video we can get our hands on but the hollywood certainely is bette than DV, first of all just as an idea, when they scan the frames they come out (as best as i can remember) more that a few metres by a few metres, now take really good DV and and make it that big and tell me if they are nearly the same quality

padawanNick · Post by **padawanNick** » Mon Aug 15, 2005 5:08 am

Under expert control in ideal conditions, it is possible to shoot DV plates that look film-like on a TV. That's about as close as you can get.

First, resolution: DV is 720x480 NTSC, only slightly more for PAL. Film is typically scanned at a minimum of 2k resolution (1828x1332 for "Academy" format) and is sometimes even scanned at 4k for high-end work (3656x2664 Academy). Too see what a difference this can make, shoot a picture with your DV camera, and then shoot the same thing with a digital still camera at 2Mega pixel or up and look at the difference in terms of quality and detail. You can also reduce the hi res photo down to DV resolution and you will STILL see better quality from the picture that came from the hi-res camear.

That also leaves out the dynamic range of film. Lets just forget for a moment that DV throws away color data for 3 out of 4 pixels (film does not).
DV dynamic range is starts at a minimum value of around 20-25 for black on most cameras, and goes to a max of around 230. So, between the brightest white and darkest black, there are only about 210 shades of gray (per color channel). Film is usually scanned on a 10 bit log scale, such that black is around 95, and white is at around 685, and there is STILL further detail captured in "superwhite" bright areas (in lights and sun glints) in the range of 685-1000. This high dynamic range provides much more freedom for adjustment in color and other effects.

These are just the basic fundamentals of the raw format. Let alone the quality of a $5000 video camera with 3 tiny CCDs vs a quarter-million-dollar laser film scanner.
This is why, even most national-level television commercials are shot on film.

Things are changing, gradually though.
HD is becoming more and more common.
Especially when there is to be extensive digital effects used.

OK, all that was said simply to put DV in its place, and explain that there are very very important differences and limitations for DV vs Film.

BUT

That shouldn't stop you from shooting DV
Really, there's no reason you can't "prove" yourself and learn your craft with DV.
When you get to where someone is willing to spend money on one of your projects, you can always rent a CineAlta and shoot HD.

Right now, HD is not particularly cheaper than film, and film is entrenched and familiar to the industry.
In ten years, HD will be MUCH cheaper than film and indies will rarely shoot on film.
Hollywood and high-end productions will be shooting on film for much longer than that, since they can afford the extra quality and flexibility of film.

Scott_Talbot · Post by **Scott_Talbot** » Mon Aug 15, 2005 6:17 am

heres an interesting read titled "Films Not Dead, Damn It!" http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature ... ographers/

it should shed some light on why not everyone is flocking to the HD format.

i seem to remember from the special features on "Open Water" that it was flmed on PD170s...i think...