Friday, September 27, 2013
Filmmakers Choose Sides in Transition from Film to Digital
Tested: If you go to local revival screenings in your city, or have film geek friends, you may hear a familiar call to arms. Film has to be saved. Demand that the studios strike film prints for revival screenings. Down with digital. But the writing’s been on the wall for a while now, and as much as we hate to admit it, film--the actual use of celluloid in movie production--is waning.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I am really excited by this transition to digital for the reason identified in the latter half of the article. Digital format makes production much more economically feasible, and thus, accessible. It seems as though we are in the advent of the amateur artist. What was once a high cost, exclusive art form has become commonplace. It has facilitated more stories to be told; tapping into new ideas and new methods. That being said, not all that which is being made is of any quality. Take fifteen minutes to click around on YouTube. That being said, this accessibility enables greater exposure for professional filmmakers. Naturally, the more you are exposed to, the better your own art becomes. Barring an intricate technical knowhow, this article doesn’t really present coherent reasoning on why to stick to film, other than that film purists really like it. I would forward that somewhere in this argument there is a fear of being found out, that as film becomes accessible, more and more people will feel like “Oh, I can do this.” Yet many of these fears are unjustified. The craft of storytelling still requires both brilliance and discipline. Lack of it will result in little more than mediocrity.
My dad is a film maker and I've grown up around the editing studio and film shoots. When he was studying in film school he used film and for a short time in his career he used film. But for most of the time that he has been working he has been using digital. I have never used film, or been around people using film. Digital is so much easier and cheaper to use that it's really very hard to justify using film.
At the same time I think that the american culture has a love of film that won't go away so easily. It's not just the older directors who have never used digital and never will. Young people who would never consider using film will still call movies "films" and will identify with the image of a film strip. Film is deeply ingrained in to us and that will not be removed by the easy of use of digital.
The documentary looks like it's going to be very good. I have a ton of respect for the people who appear in the film. The film making is a very high quality and the the topics that it brings up are interesting to me. I can't wait to see this.
I had to look up some other articles to try and form an opinion on the issue. This article does not really go into depth about the pros and cons. I have to say it looks kind of like records v. digital to me. I know lots of people that claim that records are better and I can't really hear the difference. Digital gets used more because it is easier, faster and cheaper. I think the same is true of movies. I can not see the difference between a movie shot in digital and a movie shot in film and if digital allows for easier access then all the better. If thats the way the technology is moving then that seems to be what most people want.
First of all, I must say that I don't know much about film and digital moving pictures; however, I do know a bit about photography. My dad does large format photography in his spare time, and I always see him spending hours in the dark room. Using film is truly an art form. It takes time, patience, and experience. If you take a look at photographers like Minor White and Jerry Uelsmann, you can see how artists can create the same effects of a digital/photoshopped image on film. The only difference is it takes longer and more skill. I think with digital, you lose the time and patience, and overall it creates a different experience. I definitely appreciate film more than digital because of all the time and effort that goes into it. Now, everyone is using Instagram and their iPhones, and pretend they are real photographers. Photography is not just about clicking a button. You have to measure the light, distance, focus, etc. I think people definitely take the easy way out instead of learning the art of things. Of course, there are fantastic examples of digital media, but I have seen more childish/bad digital media than professional/good media. I think this can be fixed with time and progress. I'm not saying I hate Digital. I thought Hugo was beautifully done. Do I like 3D animation? Absolutely not. I agree with the guy in the video: 3D animation is just a marketing scheme. I too put on those glasses and get sick to my stomach after paying $18. I would like to see digital become more of an art form rather than the easy-way out. And I don't believe their should be a debate about either film or digital. Just because digital will grow doesn't mean we need to bury film. I am hoping that both art forms continue to live on.
A question that is popping up in every art form. Which is better? Old technology or new? Why do people like to listen to vinyl instead of digital albums and vice versa? I'm one of those people who likes both -- there is a clarity and convenience to digital, but there's a depth and character to analog. I think that the creation of digital filming has enabled more people to create film than ever before -- like George Lucas said in the preview, it has "democratized film. " I really like that. There are so many more opportunities available for creating art -- and art that more and more people can see because of the digital format. Yes, this creates the added challenge of sorting through the good and bad, but it also enables people to choose and artists to get their work out. We should embrace the new and learn how to use it, but we shouldn't forget the old. Even though it's cheap to get new clothing when old clothing wears out, there is something beautiful in being able to repair your old jeans and replace that missing button. We shouldn't forget how to do these things, but as artists we need to keep up with new technologies and explore the potential. "New movies should look different from the old ones." -- definitely! But we should still study the old ones too.
This is isn't the first time I've heard the digital v. film debate, though this article didn't do much to change my opinion. For the most part, I agree with what Nolan said about sticking with film until digital has the same quality level. At the same time I do think that digital has its cost benefits. I don't think that we should dismiss one form of cinematography just because there is a newer form out there, but we also shouldn't prevent the new form from flourishing because of stubbornness. It's a hard situation to balance.
Well many directors have chosen one or the other, I think the most accomplished directors are the ones who can flow from one to the other. In the movie State of Play, the cinematographer changed from digital to anamorphic depending which characters story was being focused on. The film embraced the different qualities of the two recording techniques.
I still stand by my opinion that if there is a budget to do it, film is the way to go. Some of the best movie effects have relied on the ability to manipulate film and alter what will be seen. Putting it all into a digital camera and digitally adding in all the affects is just boring. Not to mention it doesn't contain the same life as live film affects. In the recent Star Treck reboot, J.J. Abrams could have gone with green screen and a digital camera for the scenes where Kirk and Sulu are doing the space jump (they did try green screen for a few takes and Abrams hated it). Instead they laid mirrors on the ground outside for the actors to stand on and positioned the camera's above them. Because they were not digital camera, they were able to shake the film roll as they filmed and the end result was that of two space jumpers falling though the air. It was affective and affordable even though it was on film.
There is a time to embrace the new, but that doesn't mean old traditions should fall to the wayside.
Also, 3D is a money making gimmick and anyone who uses that as their reasoning for switching over to digital has lost all my respect.
As much as I love film, I also disliked it. There are so many feature length films that we couldn't create at home because purchasing reels of film was just too expensive. Therefore we always had to settle for short films or just aborting the mission altogether. Now the film industry is growing because of the greater acceptance of digital media.
I am not a fan of 3D however, it just doesn't interest me. I also agree with Jenni, if you have the budget to buy film then buy film and use it. if you don't, digital is the way. The only downfall of digital is that anyone can make a movie and they do!!
It's no secret that digital is easier, but is that a reason to switch? Christopher Nolan seems to be making the most sense. He has said that he would be glad to start using digital over celluloid, as soon as digital became better than film.
This isn't a discussion that can normally come to an end. It's almost impossible to say which one is better. Yes, film may have the authentic look and feel, but digital allows for low light shooting and is exclusive to 3D filming.
Unfortunately I don't think the decision is up to us. Much like photography, there comes a time when manufacturers will look at the current market and decide that they no longer believe film to be profitable and will stop making it (see: Kodak). When that time comes, it will be similar to the music industry where everything is digital but there is still the underground following of vinyl, tapes, and tracks. So either we start hording film, or we decide to evolve, but either way, let's decide as a whole to just ignore whatever comes next, it's getting too time consuming to convert my music.
Though it is sad that the film industry is leaving its old, traditional ways behind, it is cool that digital is available and productions can do so much more with and for their movies. Without digital movies, such as Hugo would be far more difficult and probably more expensive. The direction the entertainment industry is taking is really exciting. I am interested to see how this could possibly effect the world of live performance in terms of media, how the technology develop and the styles of media art.
I agree that we are being "forced" to transition, but getting adjusted to this is difficult for many. I love film based movies just because there is a quality about them that you can't seem to get with digital, even with certain editing software. However, I love the fact that digital filming is much more easier to work with and is allowing the film industry to expand. The biggest issue I have with the digital world, which was brought up, is the 3D world. I personally don't perceive it very well and quite frankly is a stupid use of technology in the movie industry. I find it to be a pointless use of the technology that doesn't actually help carry a film's story along. The only time I've found 3D technology useful is in art installations, such as in Hive in downtown Pittsburgh now for the Festival of Firsts. It seems more logical and actually helps put you in a world and is useful getting a message across, not just to have things "fly at you" or what have you.
I don't really understand what's the problem with shooting in digital...
Technology has evolved and yes, it is a bit sad to say goodbye to the technology of celluloid but it was something that was bound to happen eventually.
I understand the whole "romantic" aspect of celluloid film but it just isn't an option anymore...
It's like our wood-shop refusing to use electrical tools in order to keep the old feel to the scenery being build. It just isn't effective.
I believe that at the end of the day, the heart of a film is not really effected by whether it was shot in digital or film. In stead of mourning the loss of the film technique maybe they should be mourning the loss of quality film scripts instead...
Post a Comment