I think I was a freshmen still in college. I openly declared “DIGITAL IS THE BEST. FILM BLOWS.” Man, I was an idiot back then.
It took 3 1/2 years for me to fully realize it’s the story you want to tell that matters, and as long as your own visual approach, through shot size, angle, and movement, meshes well with the story, your source format needn’t matter.
Having things out of focus allows the viewer to instead pay attention to what is in focus. A face. A car. A piece of paper. A rack focus is a beautiful moment where the movie subtley controls the viewers thoughts, and says “watch this…okay…now watch this.”
You can achieve this effect with both digital and film. It’s simply a matter of manipulating a tool.
Being able to see things in minimal light is awesome. It’s awesome looking (when done correctly). It’s awesome for the crew, as it allows for minimal set up. And it can be awesome for the story if the story demands gritty realism. This can really only best be achieved by shooting digitally.
Having a wide range of color, saturation and exposure creates an image more natural to us, since it is how we see. It can also create beautiful pictures. This can be achieved only by film in many circumstances, as more specialized lighting and equipment would be necessary to create this look with a digital source.
When you see film projected, you sit in the dark for 40% of the movie. Your brain fills in that darkness with the last frame you saw. I think that’s cool. Your eyes think its cool too, since that’s 40% less strain in the dark looking at something bright for them.
When you see a digitally projected film, your eyes work the entire time, and your brain doesn’t have as much fun since it’s not filling in the black space. Then again, you don’t ever see a speck of dust, or hair, or scratches. You don’t have to worry about a digital tape or disc burning up from the projector bulb, and if something breaks or goes wrong, it’s a hundred times easier to just turn everything back on and rewind it to the last spot you were at.
But I guess I just really like grain. And dust. And scratches. I do prefer to listen to vinyl records after all.
There are these two movies, both recent, one of which I happen to enjoy very much and the other that left me feeling cold and bored. Both are slow-paced and have a lot of characters. They are both period dramas set in a time before there was such a thing as a digital camera or camcorder or really, before there was a digital anything. Both were shot digitally. Both were shot digitally because the director of each has an affinity for the digital source and its ability to allow long takes, multiple takes, freedom of movement and somewhat worry-free and less costly application.
Except one is gritty, grainy, hand held and has the appearance of a cheaper, production with name actors. Some sequences shot at night look very cool, but some other sequences look like a home video.
The other one is very steady, graceful, planned, more assured and precise. Sequences shot at night look very cool. Other sequences shot in bright light also look very cool.
One of these movies was shot with the intention of creating a “look” that stayed true to its digital video source, with somewhat of a disregard for its more classic subject matter. The other was shot with the intention of keeping the cinematography in line with the story, digital or otherwise.
Guess which movie is better.
However, if the lesser of the two movies had been shot the in exact same way and style, but on film instead of video, I wouldn’t feel the need to discuss this at all.
Interesting.