THE GREAT DEBATE: FILM VS DIGITAL [PART 1]
Hello fellow peers and readers of this blog. I am here writing about a subject that has been a very consistent topic in the medium of motion picture / cinema. It has become a very hot topic for both major film directors as well as independent and aspiring up and coming filmmakers. A topic that brings with it various views and opinions but nonetheless valid on both ends of the spectrum. The topic of which I speak of, is Film Vs. Digital.
This has been a very big conversation starter on various streaming networks such as YouTube, mostly noticeable are AMC Movie Talk whom have had a few deep discussions about this on their YouTube channel. For starters, film requires chemicals to develop it after shooting. Video is electronic and can be played back instantly after shooting. Now, the common moviegoer who goes to the theater to watch a motion picture more than likely does not know whether the film they are watching was shot on film or digital unless they read information on it or watched behind the scenes specials prior to going to the theater. The mainstream moviegoer rarely cares about the technical details so long as the film is good and has them entertained.
Motion picture film is a very powerful and beautiful medium to capture a story with. There are technical details that can be done with motion picture that are becoming very common in 4k, 6k and 8k digital recording. Film is shot at 24 frames per second and now with digital, a production can be done at 24 frames per second as well. Just recently in the last couple of years, 60 fps (frames per second) has become a new topic for shooting with the first installment of 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey' (2012) directed by Peter Jackson. Another advocate for 60 fps is James Cameron for the next installment for his Avatar series.
The lines for the medium are beginning to blur because image quality for digital has been improving over the years and is starting to match the same standard of quality as film. The big question that comes into play is when individuals swear by one format over the other and choice sides. A motion picture is classified as a form of art and art is subjective. Some directors and companies go with shooting on film due to the aesthetic that it provides for the story and look and feel of it. Other directors choose digital because of the ability of the see the full high definition and raw files right after a take is completed in full resolution and color.
The entire debate has been going since the early 2000s and became relevant for discussion during the time when 'Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones' (2002) was in production. It was one of the first motion picture films that was being shot entirely on digital and there were lenses that were designed and all for this film to be shot with. It was major in regards to it being a big budget film that had a lot of attention from it's title and it opened the discussion for a variety of college students and filmmakers alike about the aspect of shooting on the digital format. Despite how many fans and critics may have panned the film for the story or concepts it brought forth, no one could say anything negative in regards to the technical details of the image quality that was produced. From color grading to resolution overall, it was the first time that digital was being presented and it was a statement that said that film is beautiful but it is not the only option for a motion picture now.
Director Michael Mann soon made the transition over the new medium as well, shooting the majority of 'Collateral' (2004) starring Tom Cruise, Jamie Foxx and Jada Pinkett-Smith on digital. The following year 'Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith' (2005) was released and the digital technology improved vastly from the previous installment and further pushed the digital revolution. Motion picture films were still making great strides in the early 2000s as well with 'The Matrix Reloaded' (2003) and 'The Matrix Revolutions' (2003) both using Super 35mm film stock as well as 35mm which provided crisp image quality captured on celluloid. At this time as well, 'The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring' (2001), 'The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers' (2002), and 'The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King' (2003) were all shot on 35mm and had one of the best color-gradings done for a motion pictures that made the films look gorgeous and allowed for adding more lighting and grading effects that was not done for films in the way not done prior to these three films.
Christopher Nolan delivered three films in the form of 'The Dark Knight Trilogy' starting with 'Batman Begins' (2005), 'The Dark Knight' (2008) and 'The Dark Knight Rises' (2012), and began utilizing the IMAX 70mm filmstock for specific scenes for the second and third installments of the trilogy. In 2010, 'Inception' was another film that was shot on film by Christopher Nolan and it goes to show that the medium is not important, but the story. Technology is good and great but it is all upon the individual(s) who use the specific mediums of digital or film to tell a compelling story. Kathryn Bigelow shot 'The Hurt Locker' (2008) on 16mm and Super 16mm and printed it on 35mm and some speed high shots on HDCAM SR. The medium of storytelling via motion pictures is an artful and wide range that should not be limited to one style and format.
The big thing that there is a lot of politics involved with the technical choices over what is the best format to shoot on but in all in honesty, technology is a choice but the story is what is important for certain. Shooting on film or digital will not make a motion picture better, but the writing and the characters and how the plot moves forward. Editing as well as blocking of the camera and what actions are being shown in the film that are complementary to the dialogue and the story overall. Yes, studios and fans alike often highlight the special effects and visuals of a the films as of late as a marketing tool to draw more crowds in to see the film via word of mouth but it all comes down what people think of the story. When moviegoers talk to their friends about a film they can say that the special effects are good but if they did not like the story than they are not going to recommend their friends to see despite all of the beautiful special effects and big names in the film.
The idea behind writing this is to simply state to anyone in the motion picture medium, that technology does not make your film better. Good writing, good direction, talented acting and crew both production and post production help make a good film. Technology is only as good as the people who know how to use and utilize it to tell a compelling story. Technology only enhances the film when the production is solid and all of the pieces or the majority of them come together. In essence, technology should be utilized as the vehicle to drive home a well written, character-driven plot and not be utilized as the answer to make the film production.
TO BE CONTINUED WITH PART 2 [CROWDFUNDING / CORPORATE FUNDING]
This has been a very big conversation starter on various streaming networks such as YouTube, mostly noticeable are AMC Movie Talk whom have had a few deep discussions about this on their YouTube channel. For starters, film requires chemicals to develop it after shooting. Video is electronic and can be played back instantly after shooting. Now, the common moviegoer who goes to the theater to watch a motion picture more than likely does not know whether the film they are watching was shot on film or digital unless they read information on it or watched behind the scenes specials prior to going to the theater. The mainstream moviegoer rarely cares about the technical details so long as the film is good and has them entertained.
Motion picture film is a very powerful and beautiful medium to capture a story with. There are technical details that can be done with motion picture that are becoming very common in 4k, 6k and 8k digital recording. Film is shot at 24 frames per second and now with digital, a production can be done at 24 frames per second as well. Just recently in the last couple of years, 60 fps (frames per second) has become a new topic for shooting with the first installment of 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey' (2012) directed by Peter Jackson. Another advocate for 60 fps is James Cameron for the next installment for his Avatar series.
The lines for the medium are beginning to blur because image quality for digital has been improving over the years and is starting to match the same standard of quality as film. The big question that comes into play is when individuals swear by one format over the other and choice sides. A motion picture is classified as a form of art and art is subjective. Some directors and companies go with shooting on film due to the aesthetic that it provides for the story and look and feel of it. Other directors choose digital because of the ability of the see the full high definition and raw files right after a take is completed in full resolution and color.
The entire debate has been going since the early 2000s and became relevant for discussion during the time when 'Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones' (2002) was in production. It was one of the first motion picture films that was being shot entirely on digital and there were lenses that were designed and all for this film to be shot with. It was major in regards to it being a big budget film that had a lot of attention from it's title and it opened the discussion for a variety of college students and filmmakers alike about the aspect of shooting on the digital format. Despite how many fans and critics may have panned the film for the story or concepts it brought forth, no one could say anything negative in regards to the technical details of the image quality that was produced. From color grading to resolution overall, it was the first time that digital was being presented and it was a statement that said that film is beautiful but it is not the only option for a motion picture now.
Director Michael Mann soon made the transition over the new medium as well, shooting the majority of 'Collateral' (2004) starring Tom Cruise, Jamie Foxx and Jada Pinkett-Smith on digital. The following year 'Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith' (2005) was released and the digital technology improved vastly from the previous installment and further pushed the digital revolution. Motion picture films were still making great strides in the early 2000s as well with 'The Matrix Reloaded' (2003) and 'The Matrix Revolutions' (2003) both using Super 35mm film stock as well as 35mm which provided crisp image quality captured on celluloid. At this time as well, 'The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring' (2001), 'The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers' (2002), and 'The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King' (2003) were all shot on 35mm and had one of the best color-gradings done for a motion pictures that made the films look gorgeous and allowed for adding more lighting and grading effects that was not done for films in the way not done prior to these three films.
Christopher Nolan delivered three films in the form of 'The Dark Knight Trilogy' starting with 'Batman Begins' (2005), 'The Dark Knight' (2008) and 'The Dark Knight Rises' (2012), and began utilizing the IMAX 70mm filmstock for specific scenes for the second and third installments of the trilogy. In 2010, 'Inception' was another film that was shot on film by Christopher Nolan and it goes to show that the medium is not important, but the story. Technology is good and great but it is all upon the individual(s) who use the specific mediums of digital or film to tell a compelling story. Kathryn Bigelow shot 'The Hurt Locker' (2008) on 16mm and Super 16mm and printed it on 35mm and some speed high shots on HDCAM SR. The medium of storytelling via motion pictures is an artful and wide range that should not be limited to one style and format.
The big thing that there is a lot of politics involved with the technical choices over what is the best format to shoot on but in all in honesty, technology is a choice but the story is what is important for certain. Shooting on film or digital will not make a motion picture better, but the writing and the characters and how the plot moves forward. Editing as well as blocking of the camera and what actions are being shown in the film that are complementary to the dialogue and the story overall. Yes, studios and fans alike often highlight the special effects and visuals of a the films as of late as a marketing tool to draw more crowds in to see the film via word of mouth but it all comes down what people think of the story. When moviegoers talk to their friends about a film they can say that the special effects are good but if they did not like the story than they are not going to recommend their friends to see despite all of the beautiful special effects and big names in the film.
The idea behind writing this is to simply state to anyone in the motion picture medium, that technology does not make your film better. Good writing, good direction, talented acting and crew both production and post production help make a good film. Technology is only as good as the people who know how to use and utilize it to tell a compelling story. Technology only enhances the film when the production is solid and all of the pieces or the majority of them come together. In essence, technology should be utilized as the vehicle to drive home a well written, character-driven plot and not be utilized as the answer to make the film production.
TO BE CONTINUED WITH PART 2 [CROWDFUNDING / CORPORATE FUNDING]
Comments
Post a Comment