Digital vs 35mm Film

Tools    





Which is the best format?

Edit: Actually I think I may have placed this in the wrong board!

Ultimately I prefer film, but I have nothing against digital to be honest, especially when I have used it in practical modules. Film is richer and, imo, can never be truly be replaced as the information you can get into the image is vast the the resolution can often be off the charts, especially when you get the bigger 65mm and IMAX involved. Digital is great when you are trying to achieve a certain aesthetic goal. Zodiac looks terrific as does Collateral. But film will always be the daddy.



I as well prefer film.

I am by no means a film technician in any way, so my knowledge is limited to internet and book resources and friends in film school. But I think the question of which is 'best' has no real answer. They're completely different mediums that produce completely different results, usually to achieve the same end. But there are pros and cons, or at least drastic differences with each, that I know off-hand.

Digital cameras are extremely sensitive to light, so filming outside during the day or in a brightly lit room usually results in a distorted image of the actual scene. The image in focus seems more vibrant and real, but anything around the area of high light loses detail. Film stock is better at receiving bright light, so most directors find it ideal to use outdoors even if they're shooting primarily in digital. On the other hand, digital cameras are much better at picking up dimmer light. A cinematographer can use a digital camera as-is in most indoor scenes, and outside at night. I think this is becoming more popular because the resulting image is very good, but a digital camera is much easier to operate than a huge film camera.



Collateral, shot on HD digital video: This scene probably didn't require additional lighting besides the taxi light, because digital picks up darker images more clearly than film stock; but the colors looks unrealistically vivid.

There's also the difference in resolution. In the simplest terms, film is widely thought to have 'better' resolution. I'm talking to my friend who has intimate experience with both formats and he says a wider variety of film stock and lens choices leads to a level of detail that is basically up to the DP and director. The image can be as clear as they want it to be. But digital, though naturally 'clearer,' is clouded by lenses or filters they must use to compensate for atmospheric variables. He used a lot of jargon here and I confess I don't really understand it all, but the main take-away point is film is better for higher resolution.

If I were a director shooting a movie, I would go with film for several reasons. Firstly, it's much easier to understand how to use. It takes a person who's very educated in digital media to understand what filters and post-productions tools to use to produce the best results. Second, with film, I'd be able to manipulate light in the scene much better, which is usually my favorite part of a film. Shooting in digital, what you see is basically what you get, but film can be altered by specific lighting, and I can get the exact results I want every time. A last thing that I like is the 'feel' of film. We're all more used to film than digital, even if it's on an unconscious level. The grain is, I don't know, softer? which produces an almost idealized or romanticized image. Digital is either harsh, hyper-kinetic, almost documentary-style realistic, or super-vibrant--you know when you're watching a digital film.



Pan's Labyrinth, shot on 35mm film: the image has more realistic depth, picture isn't flat, extensive lighting keeps everything sharply in focus. The Departed, shot on 35mm film: outdoor scenes in daylight look natural, realistic.

Still, there are obvious aesthetic benefits to digital film. A lot of times a director or DP who wants a grimier look (The Book of Eli), or an eye-popping response (Inception), or vivid, quasi-realistic outdoor photography (Apocalypto), or documentary faux-realism (Cloverfield), will go with digital. Another benefit is cost and practicality. Shooting on digital means you don't need reels of film and expensive lighting equipment, no team of editors or processors/printers. It also means you can see the image you're shooting in real time on screen, as it will appear in the finished product. With film, there's a little video camera, but it won't tell you how the film is picking up contrast or depth of field.

So, if I were making a movie, my 'student film' would be shot on digital because it's cheaper and I don't need to wait until post-production to see my results, but I wouldn't really know what the hell I'm doing, technologically. As I got rich and famous from my first critically acclaimed movie, I'd move to film stock, which is my preferred medium for above-stated reasons.



The Book of Eli, shot on digital camera: outdoor daylight scenes appear more vibrant, there's gritty realism to the image, but contrast is unrealistically distorted; the center of action is strongly in focus but brighter areas suffer.

For the record, I want to repeat that I am not an expert on film vs. digital photography. My opinion is my own and the technical information came from stuff I've read and my friend who's used both cameras extensively. I hope someone with more experience with the cameras and a deeper knowledge of the filmmaking in general will offer more official responses. I'm actually very interested to know the professional opinion on the differences between the two.

Sorry this was so long.
__________________
"I want a film I watch to express either the joy of making cinema or the anguish of making cinema" -Francois Truffaut



I actually think it's a great thread, I was actually thinking of starting a thread asking not so much which is better, but what the differences are. I just wish someone with a greater knowledge could explain the differences. It's something I've always wanted to know in more detail, but it's not something that research can truly illustrate, it requires some hands-on experience.



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Having worked with both film and digital (red, HVX) (16 mm, and 35 mm) it's really what you as a filmmaker prefer. As an audience, film is easier on the eyes and you are use to it because digital has just really come into the limelight.

Digital, more specifically HD is too clean. You have to change a lot when you shoot digital vs film, as mentioned the lighting is a key factor here, but let's not forget make-up and the art department. Film has a softer feel to it, it can easily blend and smooth images out. HD is, as I said, too clean. Actors (superficial ones) would want to shoot on film because it hides their facial aging more than HD would. Wrinkles are not their friends.

Digital is cheaper to shoot on and is quicker (if you know what you're doing) No reloading of the film mag and you can do numerous takes. This unfortunately leads to a problem in the editing process. I don' really know what C&W meant by no team of editors. Every film needs an editor.

If there are more takes, that means more footage to capture and more stuff to edit for the editor. The REDone camera is beautiful, but it will end up costing you more in the post production stage than film would. So it's basically a balance act. Try both formats, learn what is better for what you want and then decide.

Digital can look like crap, to me Public Enemies should have been shot on film. The style Mann uses does not suit that piece. It worked in Collateral though.

Film feels more real to me, but the shift to digital is fast approaching. There are several filmmakers out there who have sworn to stay with film, P.T.A and Tarantino are two, but then you have James Cameron and Peter Jackson, who love digital. So again, it's what you prefer, not what is better.

In my opinion, if you want something done quick andcheap. Go digital. You can record audio with a digital camera (not recommend but you can). If you want something professional, time consuming and have a little bit more cash to throw its way, go with film. Film is always scary to use because if something happens to that film reel, you are in deep doodoo.

In my experience, film has always been sensitive to light. You need to be more careful lighting for film than with digital. Again, for indie filmmakers and students it is a greater risk to shoot on film, it's expensive and the threat of a hiccup is more often vs digital. But the final product in my opinion is a lot richer and fuller.

The bottom line is digital is more user friendly, which is one of the reasons it's getting so much momentum behind it. You'll need a good cinematographer to get what you want, for either format.

As a camera operator for both film and digital, the thrill of operating a film camera was a lot higher than that of a digital one.

Just my two cents.
__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews



Digital is cheaper to shoot on and is quicker (if you know what you're doing) No reloading of the film mag and you can do numerous takes. This unfortunately leads to a problem in the editing process. I don' really know what C&W meant by no team of editors. Every film needs an editor.
This is why I wanted someone experienced with cameras and the filmmaking process in general. Of course every movie needs an editor, it's literally the most crucial part of a movie. I'm just saying you need fewer people to do it in digital. But I could be wrong... If you know, Suspect, I'd greatly appreciate it if you could clarify.

My understanding is that with digital cameras, the image is immediately captured to tape or flash memory or where ever else you can store digital memory. From here it could be put through a video editing software program and a person could sequence shots however he wanted through the program. A computer does most of the work; the editor just decides what order to put the shots in and what transitions (wipes, dissolves, etc...) to use between them. Plus, the editor can see what he's doing the entire time, and nitpick throughout without having to start over.

With film, I only know of three processes for editing. One is the traditional way with that machine used from the beginning of feature length movies until the 80's-I can't remember the name or find it online-Mivola or something like that? (I would also be grateful if someone who knows what I'm talking about can give me the proper name, because I can't remember most of what I knew about it). This takes forever, and would require a whole crew of people working together to go through thousands of miles of film. This technique is almost never used anymore and is completely obsolete unless you prefer linear editing in real time. And even then, you could still use the second way...

The second way I know of is through linear editing on video with a digital intermediate. I assume the digital intermediate also takes a team of people and more time and money, because, first, it's basically transferring to digital which you could have shot in to begin with if you wanted to save money. Second, it is essentially sequencing the shots just like traditional editing, but on video. You still can't go back and correct yourself. Plus, once you synchronize the film with telecine, manipulate the grain, and color-correct, you still need to use a film recorder to convert it all back to film format for theatrical release.

The final way I know of is non-linear editing with digital intermediate. This works in the same process as above, except instead of telecining, you can just scan it to a computer and digitize it. You still need a team of people to manage the portions of film, even more people for the process of organizing the digital material, and still more to convert it back to film. Of course, many of these duties overlap so those steps don't all need individual teams, but there are still more people needed here than with digital, where the entire process is streamlined.

Again, I can't stress enough, I am not a pro, so I may have incomplete knowledge or a fundamental misunderstanding of the processes. But as best as I can tell, it takes a significantly larger team of editors and amount of money to edit film than digital images.

I know at least some of what I just wrote must be wrong, or misinterpreted by me, so please help me better understand it.

By the way, we pretty much agree on literally every other thing I brought up, as much of what you wrote reiterated things I said in my original post. so that's cool




From here it could be put through a video editing software program and a person could sequence shots however he wanted through the program. A computer does most of the work; the editor just decides what order to put the shots in and what transitions (wipes, dissolves, etc...) to use between them. Plus, the editor can see what he's doing the entire time, and nitpick throughout without having to start over.

The final way I know of is non-linear editing with digital intermediate. This works in the same process as above, except instead of telecining, you can just scan it to a computer and digitize it. You still need a team of people to manage the portions of film, even more people for the process of organizing the digital material, and still more to convert it back to film. Of course, many of these duties overlap so those steps don't all need individual teams, but there are still more people needed here than with digital, where the entire process is streamlined.
I once worked as an assistant (ultimately ended up doing much of the gritty work) for a small company called cylex who perform telecine transfers. As far as shooting goes however, ive never had the privilege of working with film (done my fair share with digital though).

Working at cylex though, you get talking to people as they drop and collect their material about what their doing and how they plan to progress with their projects, 90% of which were taking their material to a non-linier editing suite like Final Cut Studio or a version of Avid.

"Over 80 percent of commercials, 85 percent of primetime television and 90 percent of feature films are edited with Avid or Final Cut Studio systems," Tim Wilson 2004.

My point is, its ironic how many projects end up on the same editing platform and knowing all the advantages of shooting on film (most covered by you guys above), this can be the tragedy. Its seems to me that the amateurs and the young indie makers of today are over reliant on there editors for things like colour correction and grading when in fact these crafts are supposed to correct and refine at a very subtle level.

People always talk about the "look", "were going to create the look of the film in post", create the bloody look on set with your cinematographer and light technicians, or at-lest as best you can. As a great and talented film maker once told me, keep it practical until it becomes impractical, this goes for more than special effects.

These are the kinds of film maker who should be kept away from shooting with film, the people who are going to digitrash their footage with post production tools. Believe me, it doesn't take long for that richness and fulness you guys mentioned to get lost when an over elaborate editor is at the helm.



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
The most irritating thing someone can say on set is "We'll fix it in post". It's not that easy, in fact if you go in with that mentality, you're looking at a lot of problems. As you said, fix it in PRE. You'll save a lot of time and money in post if you get what you want on set first. This doesn't just go for the look of the film, but the audio as well. In my opinion, a film can look like crap and you'll still sit there and watch it, maybe even enjoy it, but if it sounds terrible, you'll send up hating the film.

Non-linear editing is the most popular editing. Most films are edited on Avid, it's the industry standard. Zodiac, which was shot digital, was edited on Final Cut Pro. Final Cut Pro, in my opinion will be more popular than Avid for the next generation of filmmakers. for the simple fact that any kid in his basement can shoot a film and edit it in Final Cut Pro on his mac. Avid costs a lot of money and you need a good suite to use it.

Colour correction should be done when the film is processing. I do it at Technicolor, usually the DOP, director and Producer will be in the session and giving instructions on how they want certain scenes to look.

We shot a film on digital and did some colour correction on a laptop, it looked terrible. The director and DP were at fault to be honest, not enough lighting for the scene, so when our VFX editor was doing some colour correcting, the image went from HD, to grainy. That is what happens when you have next to no light. So it's easier to shoot with more light and dim it down than it is to try and add some.

C&W, the machine you are talking about is a Moviola, it was the first machine used to edit film. I've never used one, but one of my professor's had one in his office.



There are different types of digital cameras, some shoot to a hard drive or P2 card, which still need to be transfered and logged into the editing software/computer. Others shoot on dv tapes, which need to be transfered and logged as well.

When we shot on film, we were projecting in HD, so we converted it. Interesting process and we edited non-linear for those films.

Now let me stress that I've never worked on a Hollywood film, in a huge studio with a massive crew. My experience has been in Canada, with small crews of people who doubled as the post production team. While everything is the same, there are always differences between a student/indie set and a Hollywood big budget one.

One piece of advice for editors though, never use windows Movie Maker. Horrible piece of crap that is.



We shot a film on digital and did some colour correction on a laptop, it looked terrible. The director and DP were at fault to be honest, not enough lighting for the scene, so when our VFX editor was doing some colour correcting, the image went from HD, to grainy. That is what happens when you have next to no light. So it's easier to shoot with more light and dim it down than it is to try and add some.

Had a very similar situation myself dude, I hate being in a position were I have to turn to the director and say "there's simply no way I can correct this, it will have to be reshot". Sometimes, its the only way. Lighting being 95% of the reason this might happen, seems to be something directors need to educate themselves in, or have specialists on set.

When incidents like this happen, you thank God your not shooting 35mil, Digital is ideal for the wasteful amateurs, bad enough having to reconstruct a scene when your not shooting on expensive film stock.



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
I know what you mean. Our director, if you want to call her that, was pretty amateur. Which is surprising because she directed films before. It was her own script yet she seemed like she didn't want to direct it.

You know you're in trouble when you wait almost 2 hours to get 3 shots......OF INSERTS!!!



35 mm, no question...well if you get to develop it yourself. Otherwise digital.
__________________
But I, being poor, have only my dreams; I have spread my dreams under your feet, Tread softly because you tread on my dreams. W.B. Yeats



I don't have any technical expertise here, but speaking only as a viewer, I don't subscribe to the view of some critics that the little artifacts of "traditional" film are somehow crucial or important, or make the film more genuine. I get the nostalgia attached to them, but I don't feel a perfectly clear, artifact-less digital shot is inferior just because it doesn't the charming imperfections of regular film.

This is not to say I dislike traditional film, or am bothered by these imperfections. I just don't hold the lack of same against digital at all.