Allow me to preface by saying that this thread was created to highlight - what is - a historical transition in the medium of filmmaking. I did not advocate one negative format over the other, but I am glad we're seeing a discussion that is progressively exploring these notions.
Okay, first of all, you need a clap.
Amazing thread and a good topic. I do agree that we're living inside a huge change- that will change nearly everything including film. I'm lookin forward to this change since it will open so many new possibilities... but I have a problem.
My opinion is, there isn't enough quality to match technology. Kubrick, if born in this generation would have made even greater films because of the technology supporting his mind. However these days I find the quality of filmmaking not as great as past decades. I feel like the new technology of film is being almost wasted.
Also because of the digital change, it may just me be, but the movies are losing a certain warmth that was human and approachable. I don't have a problem with digitalization at all, its just that I strongly believe at least movies need to stay the way they are in certain aspects, as movies are supposed to be close to us and relate to us and be a good friend. And even if an age comes where people start to dare programs like in Her, I will be sticking with the reality.
This is simply my opinion, and I'm not even sure about it. I don't have a great analysis and film technique knowledge but this was a great topic and thread that I wanted to contribute to and discuss.
Thank you for the reply, Gatsby, and the nice words.
Photochemical film, undoubtedly, spawns a very distinctive look in comparison to digital photography. Whether one personally prefers this look or not is entirely subjective, but a lot of today's films that use 35mm as their negative format today are heavily impeded during (customary) digital intermediate. On one level, distinguishing the difference between a picture shot on film and a picture shot on digital today is nearly indiscernible. This is because all projects that use film are scanned onto computers for editorial, colour grading and distribution. The film look is dying due to the DI, and this is why various filmmakers no longer opt to shoot with it. Inside Llewyn Davis, the Coen brothers' latest work, was shot on 35mm. However, even the filmmakers, themselves, admitted that this film went through a ruthless DI - the colour grading and picture contrasting was excessive. And that is evident in the final product of the film. I was rather surprised to discover under its technical specifications that the film was shot on 35mm and not digital.
Hear me out.
Films used to be edited with the tangible stock actually being manipulated. Every effect was achieved by physically cutting, pasting or overlapping the film stock. A fine example for instance is the dissolve technique. In the past, the filmmaker had to overlap the fade-out of a scene with the fade-in of another scene. Nowadays, we just click on the effect in the editing programme we're using and BOOM, it's there. We don't even need a fade-in or a fade-out anymore. Everything from editing techniques to visual effects (Yoda's puppet gets replaced by a completely new CGI form for instance) can now be done in post-production. We simply need to manipulate the binary formula of the movie, instead of handling the physical images we created. The connection between the footage and the end result gets much looser.
The fact that the possibilities of post-production have become almost infinite is both enlightening and dangerous. On the one hand it gives the filmmakers and creative minds behind films way more control over the end result of the film. They're not dependent on the actual footage anymore. We can pretty much create a whole new scene out of the footage. George Lucas is one the most famous people who has spoken extensively about this and who very much embraces this new revolution, but at the same time he's also a great example of the dangers that this shift in balance could implicate. A controlling mind, a perfectionist, who wants to get everything just right the way he wants to, will tend to overuse and even ultimately abuse the new possibilities that digital post-production has to offer. The original image will be manipulated in such an extreme way, that it ultimately may lose its visual honesty, its truth, its warmth...
The fact that we now capture or project most films digitally is a huge change, but it's the post-production, the process in between the two, that makes the digital revolution truly visible on our screens. It's there where you can actually enhance the quality of your film with the new possibilities that new filmmaking technology has provided or where you can totally ruin it, where you can make audiences explore new visual wonders or where you can make the film lose its warmth...
I stand by what I said. "The only thing that's really important is in which way the new tools are used and for what purpose."
Thanks for the reply, Cobpyth, and a very well-written post.
You've nailed it when it comes to the digital intermediate. Prior to digital editing, colour grading, distribution and projection, we primarily edited with processed film on editing tables (i.e., a Flatbed or a Molovia). We would cut film here and paste other film there. It was practical, and this is why many early editors were, in fact, females - it was like a sewing process in its infancy. After editing on one of those analog systems, you were ultimately left with a print; metres-long worth of still
edited photographs (i.e., the final product). This print would then subsequently be copied and reprinted thousands of times like a newspaper would and then get distributed all around the world to theatres. It was an analog process, where digital technology played absolutely no role, and this is why films then had such a
distinctive look - the film used in editorial was not scanned onto a computer, it was not theatrically presented via. digital projection, and its colours, brightness, contrast and shades were not tampered with digitally. Movies today that still elect to shoot on 35mm photochemical film go through a relentless DI, and this consequently impedes the 'film look' immensely, something you rightfully alluded to. So, yes, absolutely - post-production plays an imperative component in this debate.
Take The Amazing Spider-Man 2 - this work was shot on 35mm, but who could honestly tell? Same with Edge of Tomorrow. The upcoming Jurassic Work is, too. And, yet, funnily enough, none of these films can really even be seen in the format it was shot on. Good luck coming across a 35mm film print of The Amazing Spider-Man 2.
I feel like most arguments in favor of film are based on nostalgia. We're not losing anything by switching to digital, we just have to adjust to it in many ways. And maybe even not - does anyone watch a Fincher film and for a second think "this is terrible because it's digital"? Well, not most people. A movie is as good as the director and cast and crew make it, digital or not. Plenty of films have been made both digitally and with film that are good, and plenty have been made that are bad. I love film, I too feel a bit nostalgic about it, but digital isn't going anywhere and is in fact becoming more and more prominent. In the words of Robert Rodriguez, it's time to be a part of that.
Thanks for the reply, Swan.
Nostalgia plays an instrumental role. As I alluded to in my original post, photochemical is all we've ever associated with the medium of filmmaking. It's all we have ever known. When auters like Lucas and Coppola pushed digital, they were the recipient of a lot of ardent backlash and resentment. And you can see why. However, yes, at the end of the day, it is and always will be about how the film tells its story. This is the very fundamental core of the medium. I would rather see a great film shot on an iPhone than I would a poor one shot on 70mm film. I think we can all agree on that one. I am happy digital is not going anywhere - it has numerous advantages, especially when it comes to workflow on set. Moreover, having the ability to physically see what you're capturing during principal photography is one thing photochemical film never allowed. And digital is still in its infancy - it is staggering how quickly the resolution and picture quality has improved and within such a short amount of time. I am optimistic about its future. I am also a proponent for film and digital sharing serene coexistence, but it seems like we're being forced to choose one over the other.
If we went back in time and The Godfather was shot digitally, would it look the same and would it be the same film it is now? If it wouldn't, I would like to know why. If it would, that makes this whole "film vs. digital" debate pointless and a waste of time.
Thanks for the reply, BlueLion.
I do not think it is a waste of time. Cinematographically, shooting on one negative format over another is technically a very different process, particularly when it comes to lighting and framing. That, there, renders this debate salient, especially if you care about the technical art of filmmaking and cinematography. It also has impacted editorial immensely - from traditional cut and paste film editing to computer softwares and media? That is huge. However, I absolutely agree that filmmaking is strictly a storytelling medium and it doesn't matter what you're shooting on just as long as you are telling a story. But I think this debate is an important one. After all, we have changed the way we are capturing the image.
I think nowadays a certain issue people have is that everything in a film looks too clean and polished, you can tell its digital because there's no scratch marks, everything is nice and shiny etc.
When you watch older films, especially ones from the Seventies they have a certain faded look, the blacks look different, the colour is faded in parts, it's grainy etc.
Something like that would now look totally different.
In real terms it's better quality. But people go to the movies for the 'movies experience' and a lot of people love the older films that capture a time gone by, there's just a certain romance that has developed between moviegoers and film that's hard to pinpoint but is definitely there.
That's not to say digital films can't be beautiful too, a lot are. As I say, there's just something special about the imperfect and mysterious quality of capturing it on film (where they had less time and money to perfect everything) that makes it so attractive.
Thanks for the reply, Daniel.
I agree about that distinctive film look, and the reason why we don't see it anymore is because of many, many things. Firstly, digital intermediate, the customary post-production process that all films, including those shot on 35mm, go through. Secondly, the quality and production of the film stock being used. Some 35mm film reacts to strengths and densities of incoming light differently. Some shape and form the contrasts of shades and colours differently. Some film stock is designed to capture selected colours vividly and brightly, whereas others are designed to capture other selected colours more bleakly and dilutely. Electing which film stock to shoot on is a huge artistic and aesthetic decision that the cinematographer and director face.
Literally just finished a 2500 word essay on this. Good stuff! 
If you ever have the opportunity to share it, please do. Thanks, Rhys.
Ok.
The argument between D and F, is that something "gets lost". Film is better looking, or simply more pleasing to the eye.
This throws back to old photography I think. I remember early digital cameras and I hated them. I was a stalwart pal of my SLR "Film" Camera whereas my Brother was buying digital cameras and harping about how great they were.
I could see, physically see, that they were crap. Total utter crap. Bad imagery all round. The colours were spot on, they were just blocky.
I remember saying about how they were easier to get a clearer picture in that you could see the image immediately, and delete one where someone had blinked or the camera had moved and you got a blurry pic.
And I remember saying along the lines of "give it a few years when the tech has improved and they might be great" but for now, they're complete pap.
The transition from crap Digital imagery to good Digital imagery, photos or movies, has been a gradual effect. Unnoticed.
Like a person aging, I haven't seen me age when I look in the mirror, but when I look at a photo of me 10 years ago, I see the difference.
Digital has leaped and bounded so far since the early 90s it's hard to believe the difference and I find it hard when people say Digital loses, let's say "the soul" of the movie.
Thanks for the reply, The Rodent.
Yes, despite digital still being somewhat in its technological infancy, the improvements that have been made are staggeringly good. We're already seeing production of 6K digital cameras - something that could very well exceed the resolution of 35mm photochemical film, and essentially spawn a sharper and clearer image. But advocates of film argue that the image is too clean and too pristine, losing all of its naturalistic imperfections like grain. I don't necessarily agree with this sentiment, but I can understand it.
Reply to Topic
