FILM VS DIGITAL: IS THE DEBATE WORTH IT?
I never shot on film and I might or might not get the chance to shoot on it. When I say film in this sense, I don't mean photographic film (meant for still photos) but rather film meant for motion picture. I wouldn't really know what the film medium is like in its different aspects (aesthetically, work flow, operation, strengths and weaknesses) because I've only shot digitally and even in that manner, I haven't dealt with most of the various digital formats. Both these formats are new/unknown to me as I'm just one year/a year and half into the art of film making but of course we live in a world were access to resources and knowledge is very easy.
Surely over the time after watching countless films, I started noticing visual and aesthetic differences between film and digital and most of the time the film look brought more appeal than digital (in some cases the opposite was true). The huge issue here is the debate as to which format is superior; film or digital? Many forums, websites, blogs, documentaries and the like have tried to tackle this issue. But, I was interested to write on this topic after watching Side by Side, a documentary film written - directed by Christopher Kenneally and produced - presented by Keanu Reeves.
The documentary focuses on introducing both mediums and also interviewing different directors, cinematographers, producers, editors, colorists and actors on the advantages and disadvantages of each medium. As far as the documentary goes, I understood that the arguments were based on these major factors:
- The most important: The look or aesthetic. Some directors and cinematographers greatly argued that visually/aesthetically, film was stronger than the digital medium. Some even referred to detailed issues such as grain, dynamic range, detail and resolution. But others argued for digital saying that the development of the medium has brought not only some greater visual liberties, but also advancements in issues like low light (e.g. The VIPER Filmstream camera being used for the night scenes in Collateral (2004) which brought greater low light capabilities than film could). But also since the digital revolution started, developments are being made to make the digital medium better in it's visual capabilities. Companies such as ARRI and RED are producing great cameras with amazing sensors that some directors have used in their feature films.
- Camera movement and size: Most directors or cinematographers who argued for the digital medium said that it brought greater liberties in terms of the camera movements, some even noting that some movements were not achievable with film cameras due to their size and weight. Films like Slumdog Millionare (2008) used the flexible and tiny Silicon Imaging SI-2K MINI camera connected into a Macbook Pro laptop to run through the slums (definitely an amazing scene) which would be harder to achieve if a film camera was used. Most digital manufacturers are also trying to make their cameras smaller but with better capabilities which has definitely helped in the adoption of the digital medium.
- Money and Time. Even without using film, you definitely understand that it is not a cheap medium or let's say it's not cheaper than digital. Most directors and cinematographers that started adopting the digital medium made a note on this specific issue. Film budgets would go down, the possibility of multi cameras would be higher and still maintain lower budgets and this helped increase their creative capabilities (so they say). But another important issue was time. Film required time both in production and post production, things like playback and liveview weren't possible hence more time taken to set things up to make sure things don't go wrong before they send the film to the lab. So this took more time and also cost more money to hold the crew. But digital has all these features making things easier, faster and cheaper.
- Workflow (Editing, Coloring, Projection): The workflow involved with film is harder and longer and needs high knowledge of a specific craft to be orchestrated. Things such as cutting and coloring were done mechanically until people started to use computers to create Digital Intermediates (DI) of film to work digitally. But some directors note that this process brought discipline and value to the film art. Contrary to that, other directors, cinematographers, editors and colorists noted that not only was it easier and faster to work with digital means but also it allowed greater creative capabilities especially in post production (VFX, Editing, Coloring). But this point takes us to the last point, also a very important one.
- Artistic Value: Most of the directors and cinematographers who still use or stick to film talked largely on the artistic value of the craft and the crafter. In the film world, not everyone was able to do everything. The work of a cinematographer was uninterrupted because only he was the master of his field and the same applies to the people involved in other fields that involved film. They also argue that the value is gradually decreasing due to the increase of digital cameras that are cheaper and more affordable to most people and that also leads to the decreasing value of the art of film and visual storytelling. But I would consider that an actually positive thing on some aspects such as the growth of the film making craft in most parts of the world through the increase of independent filmmakers but also easier access to storytelling tools agreeable to some directors and cinematographers interviewed in the documentary.
Of course each side had it's viable arguments and reasons to stand for what they do. But the question is; Is the debate worth it? I think not quite so. On one side it actually helps in the growth of the digital medium due to the constant fixing and refining of the different flaws digital has compared to film. But the main point of film making I believe is visual storytelling. Yes, some mediums might be superior than others, likewise some cameras are better than others but the top priority is to tell a good story. I do agree a good story won't work with poor visuals as film making is a visual art but the opposite is also true: good visuals without a good story is nonsense. But the point here is that most of the tools we use are already a good start (such as DSLR cameras) and if you get the chance to upgrade from a lesser superior tool to one that is more superior definitely take a go but I believe both mediums have given us great stories to be remembered in history which are also great visual masterpieces. But what do you think, is the debate worthwhile? Is the discussion important? Tell me your thoughts, share your comments and don't forget to watch this short trailer to get a glimpse of this great documentary. A documentary worth watching.
MOVIECLIPS Trailers