I do wish that a company would release an affordable 8MM & 16MM film cameras that can be afforded by independent filmmakers and students. While many of the “film purist” directors talk a lot about how film is superior and that it’s dying out, they fail to realize that there aren’t any affordable ways for the newer generation to use film. They had that opportunity back in the 90s. But now it just doesn’t seem possible. Or even worth it. and I think that’s the biggest reason why film is “dying”.
I agree! I graduated in 2018, and while our intro production classes had us shoot on Super 8 and 16mm film, it was definitely on the way out. Our only options for cameras were to rent things from the school that are 30+ years old or try to buy ones used somewhere. Now that I'm out of school, though, I can't really shoot film at all, because buying a camera is prohibitively expensive and I can't rent cameras anywhere. It would be great if they could do like Polaroid is doing now, making new, modern film movie cameras for people to use while also continuing to support the old cameras.
@@BThings I’m glad to hear that you got a chance to use some film cameras! Sadly, I couldn’t go to film school to get that experience. Good for you, man. I really think that the big time directors should spearhead a project that would allow the new generation to use film instead of saying how it’s dying out.
The cameras aren't the problem in my opinion. Old super 8 cameras are really easy to get. The problem is that getting your hand on film and getting it developed is way too expensive. I've got a beaulieu that works great, but operating it is over a hundred Euros per 3€ cartridge. That's prohibitively expensive no matter how much I like the look.
@@dinitha11 As with any experience, it had its benefits and drawbacks. School was probably the only time I'll ever get to shoot movies on film, though, which is evidence in itself that film is not as accessible of a format.
Film will eventually die out you know. Because the process to make film and process film involve using chemical that is bad for the environment and hard to dispose of afterwards. So it's not sustainable to popularize film again. Imagine everyone can just go buy and shoot film footage, a lot of those films will probably be garbage, especially now everything can become a trend, not only filmmakers like us buy film but maybe other kids will buy and use them just for fun and then dump them, that would be such a big waste. That's why I think film should stay in that realm of higher end filmmaking where they can be shot and handled properly. I mean shooting film is gonna be a great experience for everyone and I would love to do so if given the chance but most of us don't really need to shoot film to make good films.
The biggest drawback to film is the cost. I've seen indie filmmakers blow their entire budget on tins of film and then they have nothing for post production. Using digital means you can put your budget into other parts of your production (especially post work) and make your film as good as it can be.
Sad to see 20 year olds yearn for clunky victorian era tech and not understanding that progress has a purpose to their benefit. It's like lamenting the abandonment of asbestos or arsenic paint.
@@azv343 Digital shot movies are not progress or even close to it. 35mm film has a resolution equivalent of 8K and a color presentation that no digital HDR system can even dream about. Films shot in the 1950s look better than all modern digital movies.
Talking as a still photographer: Film doesn't take better pictures. But it makes me take better pictures. Being forced to take that one perfect shot often gibes me way more impressive results than taking 20 different digital shots and seeing which one is the best.
That seems well said and echos this video's sentiment as well. Film pushes you to be more careful about the setup. More purposeful. Digital is more relaxed and allows greater flexibility. You don't need to focus on being perfect for just 1 shot. Which is better is determined only by what is most important to you. Is it flexibility? Is it working in a confined set of rules? So on and so on.
@@soccerboyluke exactly. Forcing you to slow down means it’s really just a matter of controlling ones mind. Digital is clearly better - and this coming from a guy who loves film.
@@latenightlogic I disagree I don't think we could have ever gotten a movie as beautifully shot as Forrest Gump on digital we had advanced so far with film by the 90s that the bar was set insanely high in my opinion it's the perfect movie to exemplify how far we'd come with movie making techniques. Back when we were still enamored with the magic of Hollywood. Not to say all movies today are bad but they lack that certain passion
@@Chris-ey7zy They both use celluloid film, ding dong. To cut costs we would literally do film tests with slide film in kodak stocks similar to what we would shoot on 16mm. Besides the motion, they're literally the same media.
What's important is how the image makes me feel. Film often has a strong texture to it and that makes it a bit more accessible in terms of emotional response...at least for me. That resonance can be replicated in digital movies that are very thoughtfully shot and color graded; the recent "The Kid Detective" comes to mind. But sometimes attempts at digital artistry can fall flat--"Nebraska" is a great dramedy, but its attempt to find it its own visual voice through black-and-white fails, as there was no consideration for how light and texture could really bring the images to life.
trust me , in 5 or 7 years again digital kamera have more soul than the best seluloid camera at the era , technology grown so amazing, i 5 or 7 years later no debate again Digital Camera is the best
I remember watching “Nebraska” in film class and feeling like it was very flat compared to the other black and white movies we’d watched, like “The Artist”. I didn’t know that was because it was digital and not film!
Directors who master the versatility of the film camera always make the most beautiful films. Dunkirk, Tenet, and The Grand Budapest are perfect examples of why Nolan and Wes Anderson are the best at film beauty.
@@s.singh27 Not really. When I was younger I used to think every movie with cool shots and a clear color palette is beautiful, which they are...but as your eyes mature you start to appreciate the richness of the colors in Dunkirk and which shade of beige goes best with that shade of green...if you know what I mean. So I guess that what contributes to the film’s beauty is the editing (color grading), directing, and production design as well as the cinematography...instead of only cinematography.
@@marcom.3554 You just assumed I was talking about cool shots and cinematography specifically when I didn't even mention all of that. I just said there are films by other filmmakers that are a better examples of "film beauty" and do it better than Nolan and Wes Anderson. While I agree that Dunkirk, strictly in terms of it's visuals, is perhaps the best film from the last decade or so, I think there are still better filmmakers imo to study when it comes to this namely, Wim Wenders, Kurosawa, Alejandro g. Iñarritu, Terry Malick, Tarkowsky, PTA, Bergman, Alfonso Cuaron and obviously Kubrick, I'd say even Ozu can be mentioned here though his films look much more simple as compared to all these other filmmakers but that's how his films are so they're supposed to look like that, I mean the guy literally invented pillow shots. Both Nolan and Wes Anderson work much differently than most filmmakers I mentioned especially since their production designs are extremely unique and it's easier to think that PTA, Wim Wenders, Iñarritu, Terrence Malick, Ozu aren't close to them with their production designs since they usually go with much simpler and natural sets of production, I think in terms of looks, use of all their technical aspects and colour in their films, all these guys are simply better to watch and learn from.
@@s.singh27 I definitely agree with that. Tarkovsky, Terrence Malick, Bergman, and although I don’t like kurosawa’s style as much but it’s still really good. Yes, I believe these directors are so underrated because art has taken a hard dive and everything is spectacle and politically correct nowadays. I just think that Nolan and Wes Anderson mastered the versatility of the camera, especially the way they move the camera and build the sets with colors tailored specifically to look good on film. But then again we have much more technology these days so it’s much easier. The older generation directors did have more natural looks, but then again their films are more experimental with barely any spectacle than Inception for example.
@@s.singh27 Don’t forget Sergio Leone. Once upon a time in the west and Once upon a time in america might be two of the most beautiful films in terms of cinematogrophy!
Not Really true, shooting 16mm isnt thaaaat expensive, just did a short Film (ca 25m) and it ended up being around 10k€ just for the Equipment, the rolls and the development and scan. Thats doable on small Budgets.
I own a 435es and shoot on it quite consistently. I also rent out my camera and work as a loader and strive to keep my rental prices affordable, at least when compared to modern digital cameras. The prices are comparable, with film coming out marginally more expensive.
There's an entire documentary about this called Side by Side where Keanu Reeves interviews filmmakers. It's great, seen it may times and never get tired of it.
Honestly, I love film, but digital is infinitely easier to work with. You can pull your phone out and get the equivalent 16mm footage. Shoot a whole feature film on a fucking telephone. My big beef is when people do use film, they grade it to look digital... which I ask; what was the purpose of shooting on film in the first place if you are just going to make it look digital? I say if you're using film, embrace it's natural look. Embrace grain and weird artifacts.
Well, if you are shooting a film using 65mm or 65mm IMAX film stock, you can get a much higher resolution than what most digital cameras can do. So you are futureproofing your picture.
I shot a few student projects on 16mm and loved working with film! It definitely promotes a different atmosphere on set. I'd like to use it more, but in addition to cost, the big problem I have is availability. I live in Utah, and very few projects are shot on film here, and I'm not aware of any rental houses that carry film cameras. I'm glad I took the opportunities to shoot on film when I was a student.
yeah Im afraid people on their phones on set is more of a social issue and the growing lack of common decency we have. im sure if phones existed in the 70's people would be on them twice as much with all the down time. that was a really bad example in this piece. digitally filming and people on their phones have nothing in common with each other. its just rude people and not having set boundaries.
haha I think I understand. Like how I use film cameras for capturing photos most of the time today. The 'mystery' is the thrill, sometimes you will get an unexpected outcome that you cant replicate 100% with digital, it has its own unique character and feels despite digital is far more superior in any other way.
You must add that almost nobody shoots 4 perf 35mm film. The tendency nowadays is using wide aspect ratios and with 2 perf people have that and get double the time recorded so... Only if using anamorphic lenses or really squared ratios you would shoot 4 perf. So it's unfair saying film only gives you 4 and a half minutes every time you use it...
Strictly speaking 3 perf is a lot more common than 2 perf because it's just the right size for a 1:85:1 picture. Also 4 perf is probably more common than 2 perf because of anamorphic lenses.
@@CraigBickerstaff Yes. Lots of movies shoot 4-perf for 1.85:1 and scope extractions just like you’d shoot open gate on the Alexa. I’d say 2-perf is probably still the rarest since most film cameras can’t do it and it’s more of a low fi look. Also most scenes for which you’d need longer recording times you use 1000 ft mags.
I think the best way to make and watch movies today is too shot the movie on celluloid and then seeing it digitally. In my opinion, one of the greatest benefits of seeing a film shot on celluloid in a digital medium like a 4K disc or digital projector is that when the film is scanned from the original negative, all the grain one sees is what originated on the negative. When a film is projected on celluloid, additional grain is introduced, even if the print is a second generation away from the negative. So ironically, when a filmmaker like Tarantino champions that his films should be seen on celluloid, digital projection can in some ways represent more accurately what the negative captured. One advantage celluloid has had over digital projection for a long time is in contrast and resolution. But with 4K laser projectors I think that advantage will slowly disappear. Especially considering that 99.99% of all movies shot on celluloid today are finished using a Digital intermediate. Which means that even if celluloid prints are being made, they will be struck from that DI and be limited to the resolution of the DI, which most likely will be lower than the resolution of the film print. If you then add on the extra grain and softness that get introduced from the print I think that a film that was shot on celluloid and then receives a 4K DI will look better on a 4K laser projector than on a film print. But I do believe celluloid has the advantage when it comes to older movies that were finished photochemicly and shoot on large formats like 65mm and VistaVision. Because then the true resolution of film is being taken advantage of (as long as the print doesn't come from a digital restoration of that movie, even 2001 a space odysseys 8K restoration probably don't take full advantage of a 65mm print, but digital restorations has of course other benefits, like damage removal.) After the introduction of the Digital intermediate the full potential celluloid has been lost when it comes to resolution, but has also given the filmmaker more freedom with color grading and special effects. I look forward to the day when 8K,10K,12k DIs are the norm.
digitally scanning film isn't an issue. its a great thing. and people who say they can see the "digital nature" of the scans are full of it. digital capture? maybe, but not digitization period. Same way with audio. these 'I can hear the difference between digital and analogue' are also full of it. recorded at high sample rates you cannot tell. though theres a big market for that "analogue sound" but with emulation software it comes down to 99.9999 percent of people not hearing the difference. wars have been fought over this but I have yet to run into someone who could differentiate.
@@bighands69 im a film lover, but this comment is a little unrealistic. we've come VERY close to it. of course nothing will ever look exactly like film, otherwise it would be film. ive seen some color grades and science emulation that hits so close its scary. and im not talking about slapping on random grain generators. talking about the real deal. ive seen things shot on an Arri Alexa and graded by industry pros and you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference.
@@flipnap2112 I am sorry but it is not even close. 35mm film has a minimum resolution of about 8K and a color palette that no digital system can even get close to. It is the reason why film from the 1950s look far better than any digital movie today. The gap is so wide that nobody would really be fooled. What people are talking about is watching a movie on a digital format such as a TV or digital cinema and fooling them self that there is a comparison.
@@bighands69 I dont mean to be rude, honestly, but you dont seem to understand the subject were discussing. resolution isn't the issue with digital VS film. the human eye cannot resolve 8K film scans VS 8k capture. its the same thing. and film had MANY resolutions depending on what ASA/ISO you shot at (example, low light film was grainy as hell, thats called bad resolution) . And again, I think this entire thread of discussions isn't about watching something on a digital TV VS analogue. If you watched "JAWS" on a modern digital TV with no "motion"effects and on a normal color profile you couldn't tell the difference. Of course watching an analog projector with a film gate shutting on and off is a mechanical difference that, in my opinion, looks terrible. I appreciate your love of film, as Im a HUGE analogue film lover. but your comments are misguided and while you have good intentions youre speaking of vastly different things here.
when i started working at a movie theater, they still use film. but when a company takes over they switch it to digital. i kind of like both formats they are ok.
Honestly, Digital can look even better than film when the story fully enhances the the medium. Take, 'A Hidden Life' by Terrence Malick. One of the most stunning movies I've ever watched shot all on RED camera.
What exactly do you mean by the story fully enhancing the medium? How does A Hidden Life do this? I've only ever heard of the medium enhancing the story, not the other way around.
Digital looks horrible compared to film. There is not one movie shot on digital that can even come close to the likes of Vertigo or Ben-Hur. Blade Runner 2049 looks horrible compared to Blade Runner.
@@bighands69 "Blade Runner 2045 looks horrible compared to Blade Runner" Not even close stop constantly dickriding film and start spelling 2049 correctly.
I think we all understand the differences, but thank God there is still the option to shoot film, for particular movies that need this extra artsy look, particularly when the style of the movie is going towards the theatrical, when it’s more about the acting and the sets rather than just the spectacle itself. 430$ for 4 minutes of film now that’s insane though, I didn’t think it was that expensive, I thought it would be more like 4 times cheaper for a roll but knowing this surely adds an even greater value to it, even though I already value film more than I do with digital since I ditched digital photography over film over two years ago. To each project it’s own I guess, but film will always be closer to the hearts, because film is material, and everything that materialises in our reality is of greater value than something made up or just displayed on a screen. It’s true for all art categories, either it being silver gelatin prints for photography, paintings on canvas, vinyl and real instruments for music. We can deal with the compromise, just like we can appreciate watching a painting on a screen without owning it, same with music through mp3 but I don’t know, I think it goes further from the spec of movies really, it goes deep into the metaphysical, it’s a subject that cannot be truly grasped, we will always be the ass inbetween two chairs with this. I don’t know what this life is, but surely without art it wouldn’t be worth it that’s for sure.
I hate how most modern movies shot on film still do all of their effects and coloring digitally so it ends up looking nearly EXACTLY the same as if it were shot digitalitally *ehem* Christopher Nolan ... what was the point?
@@subashpariyar5965 can you tell if a classic movie was shot on film if it is projected digitally? Of course. Digital TV, monitors and projectors don't affect the filmic look. It's all in the post processing.
@@subashpariyar5965 That is not true. People can tell the difference as they can understand the quality has declined even though they may not understand why they can see it. No modern digital movie can look anywhere near as good as Vertigo or Ben-Hur.
In film school we shot on film (and a lot of us even cut on film, tho I didn't have the chance to even though we were taught how to). Shooting on film was dope af, and super fun. Like the video indicated, it really makes you regard how you shoot and stage the action in front of the camera. If I could, and the story necessitate that it would be better told with film, then I would shoot on film without any doubt, but that sh*t is expensive as hell and time consuming, and as a low budget filmmaker time is very precious cuz time is money. But damn, I miss shooting on film so much. lol
I had no idea that was the case. I've never been to film school, but I pictured that with all the aspects of filming they would need to teach, they would what to speed up that process of shooting.
@@CornishCreamtea07 Well, my experience at film school may or may not be quite different from others because of the particular film school I attended (the Film Directing Program at the California Institute of the Arts), which is one of the last film schools in the U.S. that still had students shoot on film (at least when I attended. I graduated there in 2014. For all I know, there could be way more film schools having students shoot/cut film since then). When we did shoot film it was usually 16mm (tho I heard that very seldom a student would shoot something on 35mm). However, we usually shot digitally, I did all my major projects with digital cameras as did most others. But the other non-animation oriented film program there, the Film/Video Program, where they emphasize more experimental/documentary/essay filmmaking, they usually shot more stuff with film, and a lot of my friends from that program can cut on film...and still do. In the Film Directing Program, we dealt with more narrative filmmaking, so we concentrated on scene study, screenplay writing, acting, scene blocking, film theory and analysis, working with actors, etc, so the craft of filmmaking like film lighting / cinematography, gaffing/gripping, celluloid film editing, film developing,etc, was taught more or less but not emphasized or concentrated on so to speak. But, yeah, as for the process of shooting on film there’s no real way to speed it up because it’s still chemistry, which relies on time, so unless a person can change the laws of physics and/or time travel there’s no real way the instructors at the school could alter the curriculum to make the process and red tape go ‘faster’. So if students wanted to shoot on film the first thing they had to do, for their own sake, is plan ahead and allow yourself that time. If I had more time I would have shot more film, but because that graduate program was so rigorous the luxury of time was something I could never seem to grant myself.
I learned mostly 16mm in film school. Senior year we did our thesis on 35mm, but i wasn't on camera team. I just love thst film look. Digital is getting there, though.
@@mattmorelli9833 Out of 100 digital movies maybe 5 come close to the film look. Digital just generates more ordinary looking and feeling movies I think, a forgetful experience instead of a movie going experience.
Pls make a Cinematograpy Style vid on Santosh Sivan especially stuff like the moving train dance in Dil Se(A dance scene which was rehearsed and shot on a real moving train) and The whole of Iruvar or the long shot Snow run in Roja,He usually collaborates with legendary Director Mani Ratnam or you could do it For the cinematographer Subrata Mitra who shot the films of One of the greatest directors ever Satyajit Ray,he also invented bounce lighting in film
Solid stuff here! Thank you for your hard work on delivering this quality piece of content. I love both film and digital but like the DP mentioned it does have a magical quality that is hard to replicate.
I have done film and digital a lot. I prefer digital. Film is cool, but it is a pain to work with. I am bias, though. I love that digital motion blur look in movies like Collateral, Black Hat, or Miami Vice. Basically all the newer Michael Mann movies.
I really enjoy Yeoman's perspective. For the life of me I can't understand why some DPs insist on only shooting on one or the other. To me that's like saying there a certain focal range of lenses they won't use.
I loved shooting film for weddings (Kodak Portra), but the extra cost of film, processing, and printing proofs meant that I couldn’t compete price-wise with digital shooters. I had to switch.
The look can absolutely be fully emulated. Go watch Steve Yedlin’s display prep presentation Properly treated high quality digital film can be made to look however the DP or Colourist wants. So the only way to tell film and digital apart these days is to look for the imperfections in the film. Which can also be emulated into the digital presentation. But 9 times of 10 when presented with the choice the DP and Director don’t actually want those imperfections
Not true at all. The Yedlin demo was very flawed in its approach. The only way to match it up as close is possible is to actually shoot it in both formats and try to match in post (which defeats the point of shooting digital). He did not shoot under common situations. I saw no daytime exteriors in high foliage areas, no beach shots with water, natural landscapes, etc. It was a weak test, tbh.
@@matthewphillips5483 Did you even watch his video? He literally shoots the same thing with both and then, without even trying to match them perfectly, made the Alexa look enough like film that nobody could tell the difference. In the video he explains that he did nothing special for his test, just a generalized "standard" developing of the Alexa footage to make it look like film, no manual matching.
Digital Camera sensor sensibility curves are optimised for high colour accuracy and therefore very near to those of the human eye. Film materials usually have bigger sensibilities outside the visual spectrum, that they translate to parts of the visual spectrum. This can't be reproduced in post. You would have to build a camera sensor with the same spectral sensibility curves to have the exact same result /look. This can likely be done, but is probaply not worth the effort.
Has anyone done an actual blind test to see how often someone can tell digital from film? It seems silly to claim one format looks better than the other when everyone has their own biases and they already know whether something was shot on film or digital.
Steve Yedlin has done some amazing comparisons on his website. His conclusion: digital images can reliably and consistently be processed to look like film (and vice-versa). If your capture medium can hold enough image data, and you know what you're doing in post, the film look isn't so "magical"
Digital Camera sensor sensibility curves are optimised for high colour accuracy and therefore very near to those of the human eye. Film materials usually have bigger sensibilities outside the visual spectrum, that they translate to parts of the visual spectrum. This can't be reproduced in post. You would have to build a camera sensor with the same spectral sensibility curves to have the exact same result /look. This can likely be done, but is probaply not worth the effort.
@Mee Omi It's the other way round. Film sees like your eyes. This is why lights and colours and contrasts look more natural on film. Especially the fuzzy glow of lights. While video image sensors are having a lot of trouble with that.
the problem at the 9:00 mark is that digital has too much dynamic range. the brights are too intense and the darks are too easily washed out. look at any space shuttle launch filmed on film vs digital.
I prefer the authentic look of film personally. Film grain, softer and more vibrant colours, heck even the film jitter, it all made older movies feel like they're actually in a fictional world and that you're not watching something that looks just like you'd see in everyday life. I think this largely changed around 2005 or 2006 ish onwards when digital took over. This is all my personal preference, I'm aware it may sound odd to others but I just wanted to share my feelings.
I started when you pretty much had to shoot on film to be taken seriously. Filmmaking back then really was FILMmaking. 16mm or 35mm (forget Super 8 even). Believe it or not, there was "snobbery" even amongst film shooters. 35mm shooters looked down on 16mm shooters who looked down on Super 8 shooters who all (including me) looked down on video shooters. At $1000 per 11 minutes for 35mm film/processing alone, that format was out of the question, so 16mm was the best I could do (I also shot Super 8). When Spielberg was starting out, he shot only Super 8 and 16mm. He was told that in order to be taken seriously as a filmmaker, he HAD to shoot a film in 35mm, so he did (that film was Amblin). Imagine living in a time when that was the case. You don't have to deal with that anymore. I caught the tail end of that era. I was a "shoot on film only" snob up until 2008 (as bad as Tarantino) when I finally conceded that digital HD video was starting to look good and I finally turned to the "digital darkside" (rather quickly). I actually bought a Sony PMW-EX3 (Philip Bloom's video won me over). This was just before the DSLR "filmmaking revolution" which I didn't see or anticipate at that time. Even the industry was finally loosening their standards. I've since upgraded to a PXW-FX9. The image quality is astonishing on that camera. Now I say just shoot with what you have. Just make something interesting. It sort of mattered what you shot on back when I started. VIDEO was never really taken too seriously by the film industry. There was FILM and there was VIDEO. Now it doesn't matter. You can get away with shooting on standard definition video these days. Blair Witch was mostly shot on standard definition video. That was probably the real game changer when it comes to what format to shoot on. To me the real true "digital revolution" was in postproduction, not cameras. Film was expensive, but FILM POSTPRODUCTION was ridiculously expensive and much more of a pain in the ass. It wasn't SHOOTING on film that stopped me in my tracks. It was postproduction. Good riddance to the days of linear flatbed and videotape editing. Be glad you don't have to put up with that. I have yet to say good riddance to film as I'd still like to shoot something on 35mm some day. Those starting out today are lucky to have all these tools at their disposal and not have the industry shut you out simply because of what you shot on. I would've killed to have the post production NLE editing tools (and the cameras) that are available to everyone now. I would've gotten so much more done. So much easier and cheaper.
Beyond just the look, the main reason I prefer to shoot on film is that I can say as a fact that the image we see on the monitors is not how it's going to look on the big screen, it is not what we're shooting. We can waste time and watch recordings from the video tap all we want but we know the video tap only records every frame that wasn't exposed on our filmstock. Watch dailies on the big screen, not on set!
I love shooting film (stills with my SLR). But I just can't afford it due to development costs. Plus not having many local options to drop off the roll to get developed.
I used to make a good loving being a film protectionist only 10 years ago. Lol. I clearly have a bias. Film was so much fun. The argument of which is better could go on forever, both have pros and cons.
I believe film is far more simpler than digital. With film, you have the film stock, a light meter, lenses and camera while digital has DITs, lots of wires and decks and a whole bunch of other accessories that you have to deal with and then there's the extensive post production. Shooting digitally just seems more much more complicated than when it started out with tape based cameras like the Sony F35/Panavision Genesis.
David Lean was very ecomical using film. He was an editor first, selecting what he needed. Making a film is three things in one. The Look The Light and The Lenses to tell a STORY
I don't think that film looks better to anyone on an objective level, rather it's just a matter of what you're used to, or what has been originally stored in your brain as "good". Same as e.g. someone liking an older car which was a desired/modern look in his youth when his feelings toward the subject (and therefore impressions into brain) were stronger. The same goes for FPS - 24/25 fps gives us what we know as the movie look, but only because we're used to it. Basically the only thing I see valuable with film is the mentioned focus/value of each moment when the camera rolls, and everything that goes with it. But I may be wrong, I'm just a newb. Anyways, thank you so much for these wonderful videos! 🍀
I love that the old school guys love film so much, but it’s more of a nostalgia thing than an actual quality thing. When there isn’t a nostalgic attachment to that look, film will go mostly extinct - just like black and white or silent films. It’s just a natural evolution.
I beg the differ on your statement regarding to B&W and Silent films going extinct. They are not medium they are genre and style that can be done with digital if one is creative enough to express it. Just remember that the latest silent film ever made was an Oscar Winner from 2011.
I am sometimes bothered by the vibe people give that the goal of digital is to attain the same aesthetic look as film. I suppose I get why that is, but I also like the look of digital _as_ digital. That's not to say I think the look is better than film, but I also don't think it's worse. It just is, and I like it. I don't think it has fully come into its own as an aesthetic choice, however, as it is still relatively new, and many filmmakers continue to focus on trying to make it look just like 35mm film.
I whole heartedly agree. If you look at Fincher, he nva tries to mimic that film aesthetic (except mank, but that was bcz of the story he was trying to tell). If u look at Mindhunted, he embraces the digital look and results amazing imo
That's true. I heard when Spielberg made Ready Player One, he shot the scenes in the virtual reality world digitally and the real world on Film, to give contrast between both.
More than film vs digital or cinematography I am more interested in HOW these cameras are made and how to improve film and digital cameras for the future. I always see cinematography videos but never videos on how to make the cameras themselves or get into the field of making new film & digital cameras. Who does this? Where can I start to learn this? Any video recommendations or links? Thanks!
Digital cameras are electronics and computers, so I would suggest a degree in electronics, information technology or similar. For film cameras mechanical or electrical engineering would be the right choice. Arri regularly has job openings for all sorts of development jobs on their website, so maybe take a look there. But there isn't really a job were you design and build a complete camera, it is usually a big team, because they are so complex. Film & Digital Times has a few interviews with engineers at Arri and other companies, maybe that could give you an insight.
@@janludwig7286 ah interesting thank you for the insight! So i cant really build a camera myself just work on a team that helps build and improve on cameras as a unit, huh? Thanks again I will look into the things you mentioned!
@@Orangeflava It all depends what kind of camera you want to build, it is totally possible to build something that spits out an image, but if you want to rival current digital cinema cameras you will need a team of skilled engineers for color science, electrical , optical , mechanical engineering and software engineering. But even then some parts you won't be able to manufacture yourself, even a lot of the most high end camera manufacturers outsource manufacturing of the image sensors, because you need equipment that cost tens if not hundred of millions of dollars for that. There have been people trying to build cameras themselves in the past, the Cinemartin Fran comes to mind, but that failed spectacularly.
The DP speak my thought (even tho I'm no body). Film grain is a flesh of a film. Every frame has difference dot of grain position. When you run a movie film in the projector, it creates a moving grain on a picture texture, make the picture's flesh look alive, and it works on your mind in subconscious level. It's not about color, you can do color adjustment to death, the digital video will never turn into film movies, as close as you can get is to add digital grain to it which in turn sacrifice sharpness (fix by have more resolution on raw). Another thing that I hardly find any professional mention, which might cause confusion on new filmmakers is : film grain is not film noise, they're related but not the same thing.
Today all movies shoot on film are scan on digital in 2, 4 or even 5K and, if you need, you can add CGI on. This is a thing that Branagh or Nolan, who use sometimes 65mm film, do. With 16mm and 35mm is not a big deal add CGI on, 65mm is the right choice to do it because the size of frame and his low grain (this is why most of the blockbusters with visual effects shoot on 35mm are partially shoot on 65mm too... and this has been done since the dawn of time, look ‘Blade Runner’, original ‘Star Wars’ trilogy or ‘Ghostbusters’). In these years if your movie need a lot of CGI like ‘Avatar’ you need a digital camera, and when you shoot on film is preferable using practical effects. Someone before me said that use film depends on the story you want to shoot and I agree with that, because make a movie with a certain visual or genre where there is no need of any effects (special or visual), but there is the right amount of money by the production, you can point to the film. In the other side, or for artistic choices, point to the digital.
I definitely think 35mm and digital are now indistinguishable at times, but Super 8/16 and 65/70mm all have qualities that just can’t be properly replicated digitally, yet.
I can’t believe people are still arguing about the so-called magical quality of film when Steve Yedlin’s demos are out there for everyone to see. It shows a lack of research when his work isn’t even mentioned in a video like this.
But there is a certain aspect to it that can’t be recreated. It may not be as prominent as people act like it is but it’s still present. The biggest thing I notice is a certain softness without losing detail.
I could easily tell the difference between film and digital in his demo's. Sure, digital would do just fine too, but there is a quality to film, and it can range from small to huge. But often it's multiple small elements that come together to make the overall disparity larger. Many people confuse this because they can't see the whole image at once due to how eyes work, so they focus at one part, see some minor differences, and think "basically the same". But really the differences are also not just in what you see that you're focused on, but what is also just outside of what part of the scene you're looking at. I've studied film and making digital look like film extensively for years. You can get something approximating film, but you cannot match film. I've exhaustingly tried to come up with my own methods using photo editing tools. But what it really needed is a complex simulation and a super computer to physically simulate every aspect, and even then it wouldn't be perfect because you wouldn't have the full photonic information of a scene. You could use a digital image and make each pixel simulate a photon and give it a wavelength value and stuff and that would take things closer. Keep in mind, film is actually "3D". In that, the layer that captures light is not 2 dimensional. The layer with silver grains is made up of multiple planes of randomized grains, some closer, some further. When film is exposed, the image is spread out across multiple layers, based on wherever the grain happen to be in the path of light, whether higher or lower in the substrate. There is a quality to this aspect that cannot be recreated, it can create a kind of depth to the image. If you looked at film through a microscope and looked at the grains, then slightly moved the film a little to the left or right, you would actually see these layers creating a kind of shifting effect. Even the grains themselves have varying sizes and are offset at varying angles. Even when you condense these attributes into a single digital pixel, the pixel will have its own value different than digital gives. Edges and micro contrast between details will also have different values and different hard/soft gradients in small details. Then there's the fact that every single frame of film will have its own individual characteristics. No two arrangements of grains will be alike from frame to frame. This extreme level of randomization, combined into a moving picture, allows for minor changes in micro contrasts and noise, which culminates into shoring up the look and feel. In effect, it's like taking multiple but slightly different physical readings/samples of a scene, at the wavelength level. For digital, you're basically only sampling once and pretty much getting the same result. You get a pretty much fixed result, with only the randomization of digital noise. A lot of people don't realize it, but digital noise affects images more than people think. It's always present, meaning it's messing with even the "clean" pixels, throwing off their final true result by shifting their color/brightness from slightly to greatly. That does not happen with film, as film records the true real world result without noise. Yes, the grain make a noise-like pattern, but the light that hits the grain has imparted its effect based on its wavelength. So in a true sense, when film is exposed, it's actually noiseless and a pure reading of light and contrasts between light and dark, only on tiny disparate structures that impart a pattern on the image that we call noise, but it's not noise, it's grain. And I still haven't even scratched the surface of everything that gives film its attributes, from color science to chemicals that affect how film expresses colors when developed. Sadly though, converting film to digital does degrade its qualities, because of course things do get condensed to fixed pixels that can only display soo many colors and fine details (not necessarily to mean picture sharpness, but any film aspect details). Most people have never actually viewed raw color stills, let alone a raw projected film image. Even when movie theaters did display actual film, those are just copies of copies of copies. All the glory of the original is still somewhat degraded because it takes two steps to make a film copy of film: First projection to turn the film negative into a film positive, then another projection to turn a film positive back into a film negative, which is what people would see in theaters.
You're still talking about his demos, people were convinced Knives Out was shot on film late 2019 before he and Johnson confirmed it was shot digitally, its becoming harder for audiences to ascertain what's film and what's not.
@@peoplez129 if film is 3d as you put it then the fact that there is a bayer array or 3ccd arrays in digital sensors also make it 3d. Steve Yedlin perfectly matched digital to film and I am legitimately willing to bet 100 dollars that you wouldnt tell the difference in a double blind test. your whole rant reeks of the similar subjective bullshit that audiophiles use to shill snake oil. at the end of the day when viewing on a screen pixels are pixels so there is literally no way you couldve told the difference between the two. also your talk about how noise is not noise and how light is truly captured by film is fucking stupid. real life doesnt look like film. Could it be that our eyes dont capture light as accurately as film? of course not. just the fact that different film stocks produce different looks means that film doesnt accurately capture light otherwise all film would be the same in terms of look. stop larping online as a professional on what film is when you make stupid statements like 3d film and pure reading of light.
Hey, you previously made a video about the same subject matter & how the medium is the message but now it’s removed, why did you do that & is there a chance you would reinstate it?
@@lucas_mozer It's a small separate piece of equipment called a video tap. It's basically a tiny camera that attaches to and peers through the optical viewfinder of the film camera. Then the signal is routed to the monitor. When professional film cameras are running, you'll see flicker from the shutter when looking through the viewfinder, so you'll see this flicker on the monitor as well.
As an indie director myself I personally prefer digital especially the Arri Alexa as it’s quick, small and easy to set up, there was only one scene of my first feature film that used 35mm and it was a flashback of the protagonist’s parents, needless to say my DP did a lot of the work handling it as I was completely unfamiliar with how to work with a film camera
@@bighands69 What a dumb comment. If the quality difference is non-existent (An Alexa is better than 35mm film in both convenience and quality) than why not use the more convenient and cost effective option. It's such strange mindset to want your work to be more difficult for no gain, you don't gain anything from shooting on film.
@@TechnoBabble Film as n 35mm has a resolution with a minimum of about 8K it also has a color process that no film can get close to. Digital is great for TV shows where people are watching on a digital TV system but in a film with a 35mm film projector or 70mm it is not even a contest. The only way most of you will understand is if you see both film and digital in a theatre.
@@bighands69 that's just false. Normally film is equivalent to circa 4k, with the best conditions it could go up to maximum 6k. But honestly who cares about resolution? Seaech "filmbox" by videovillage, it's a plugin for davinci resolve that can emulate film in an undistinguishable way. It's just amazing. I'm a lover of the film look, but when this plugin went out it just destroyed all the arguments about the "look" and the "quality". The new alexa 35 has almost 1 stops of latitude more than film stocks, so, I'm sorry to say film is now currently surpassed
Recently saw “Death On The Nile” (2022) in 70mm, and I can say there is most certainly a difference. It’s unfortunate I couldn’t enjoy the film the way I had hoped as I was intentionally looking for the distinctions as it played. I’m happy to say you don’t need a trained eye to catch the distinctions, you’ll see it relatively easily. Pay close attention (as I was) and you won’t miss any of it. That said, if you’re lucky enough to catch a film in 70mm or even 35mm, don’t bother forcing your eyes to look for the differences, you WILL see it, and if you’re closer to the back of the theatre, as I was, you’ll also hear it (only film aficionados will understand that last part 😂) See as much in 70mm print as possible everyone, there’s a certain magic to it 👍🏽
We need to stop calling them “movies”. What we need to instead call “movies” shot on film stock is “chronophotographic sequences”. What we need to instead call “movies” shot digitally is “video recordings”.
@6:50 "take your phone off set if you have to make a call, it's very distracting". WTF, why would any film maker allow phones on set. Tarantino is famous for no phone set which keeps everyone focused on making a movie.
Since I grew up in the digital era, I've never pictured myself shooting on film But that doesn't mean I don't defend some old school aesthetics For instance, I prefer practical effects over CGI
In the 1950s they could layer special effects on film either through art or secondary shots of live action. There are no modern digital movies that look anywhere near as good as the likes of Vertigo.
I tend to agree with Yeoman. But just this year I was completely bamboozled by First Cow. I was SURE it was shot on film, and I found an interview with the DP where they were asked "What stock did you use?" not "Film or digital?", the interviewer was so sure it was film they just asked about the stock. And the DP said "Oh it was all digital." I do think eventually it will be indistinguishable with the right treatment in the right scenario.
This debate has been happening for 15+ years, I still can't understand why it's still a debate, digital far superseded film years and years ago on that simple fact, even industry veterans assume something is shot on film when it wasn't. I can't believe there are kids 10 years younger than me today that have never handled film and somehow still romanticize it.
If you see a movie shot on a film camera that is then shown on a film projector there is simply no mistake. No digital system can even come close to that process. 35mm film has a resolution of 8K (minimum) and has a color presentation that no digital HDR system can even come close to.
@@bighands69 "8k minimum", please stop, this is getting embarrassing. 35mm film is objectively lower resolution and has less dynamic range and a smaller colour gamut than modern cinema cameras.
I think digital is the only way to go for filming, however when it comes to archiving, film is the only physical option to preserve a record. Digital file rot is very real. There's a reason microfiche is still in use today.
Not sure if this is true, but I'm sure the biggest difference is with Film your not tied to a specific resolution, but with digital your tied to your 8K / 4K resolution? Lets say in a few years when 8K is considered potato resolution, what do you do then? at least with film you can scan it i think?
Just scanning film at a higher resolution doesn't mean it will magically resolve more detail. The size of the grain and the size of the film itself determines the upper limit and digital is already far better than the best 35mm.
I was really hoping since the narrator said a couple times that he thinks digital can almost match film that he actually named some of the digitally shot movies that came close. Anyone have any examples?
There’s something to the distinctiveness of film. Especially when people want to stand out, it provides something different :) For my still photo work I shoot Hasselblad and do optical prints and it definitely is unique. There’s something to a clown sized color print off a medium format negative :)
I think a lot has to do with our expectations of what we are familiar with as well. This is why most people shoot at 24fps. were used to seeing scenery stuttering on faster pans and if it doesn't it somehow looks cheap. in the grand scheme of things thats weird. if you NEVER saw film before and watched a 60FPS pan and a 24FPS pan, not a single person would say the 24 looks better. film has a warmth to it though and its just in the nature of the analogue processing of the pipeline. but in todays world with all the tools we have its become a pretty tight gap. even in the prosumer market we have cinema cams that are ridiculously good looking for the price and image..BMPPC 6K pro for example is a steal for what it gives you.its funny because were in 2021 and people are scrambling for ways to make their music or film sound and look analogue. but if you went back to the 70's and showed them the digital capture and pipeline they would be crying.
@Frank Silvers this is all HIGHLY debatable AND subjective. But I am referring to the objective point that the processes involved with developing and the nature of gelatin-silver gives a certain look that many consider "warmth" and offers analogue possibilities such as cross processing that cannot be achieved in digital. perhaps the "warmth" is referring to an image that can only belong to analogue.
@Frank Silvers I don't think youre gettin what im putting down. im not talking color temperature. if someone has warmth in their heart, their heart isn't yellowish.
@Frank Silvers dude really? let me try this.. "Warm, also commonly referred to as amiable- referring to having a pleasant manner.".. don't be so clinical. I explained it twice already.
Hard to understand why we still can’t mimic the filmlook. Even consumer graphics hardware is capable AF, but when it comes to some color grading everything fails. What kind of unmeasurable mystery is this filmlook?
Ive always loved digital, and if given an unlimited budget i would still choose video. Its my favorite to shoot with, and I prefer the philosophy behind shooting with it.
I do wish that a company would release an affordable 8MM & 16MM film cameras that can be afforded by independent filmmakers and students. While many of the “film purist” directors talk a lot about how film is superior and that it’s dying out, they fail to realize that there aren’t any affordable ways for the newer generation to use film. They had that opportunity back in the 90s. But now it just doesn’t seem possible. Or even worth it. and I think that’s the biggest reason why film is “dying”.
I agree! I graduated in 2018, and while our intro production classes had us shoot on Super 8 and 16mm film, it was definitely on the way out. Our only options for cameras were to rent things from the school that are 30+ years old or try to buy ones used somewhere. Now that I'm out of school, though, I can't really shoot film at all, because buying a camera is prohibitively expensive and I can't rent cameras anywhere.
It would be great if they could do like Polaroid is doing now, making new, modern film movie cameras for people to use while also continuing to support the old cameras.
@@BThings I’m glad to hear that you got a chance to use some film cameras! Sadly, I couldn’t go to film school to get that experience. Good for you, man.
I really think that the big time directors should spearhead a project that would allow the new generation to use film instead of saying how it’s dying out.
The cameras aren't the problem in my opinion. Old super 8 cameras are really easy to get. The problem is that getting your hand on film and getting it developed is way too expensive.
I've got a beaulieu that works great, but operating it is over a hundred Euros per 3€ cartridge. That's prohibitively expensive no matter how much I like the look.
@@dinitha11 As with any experience, it had its benefits and drawbacks. School was probably the only time I'll ever get to shoot movies on film, though, which is evidence in itself that film is not as accessible of a format.
Film will eventually die out you know. Because the process to make film and process film involve using chemical that is bad for the environment and hard to dispose of afterwards. So it's not sustainable to popularize film again. Imagine everyone can just go buy and shoot film footage, a lot of those films will probably be garbage, especially now everything can become a trend, not only filmmakers like us buy film but maybe other kids will buy and use them just for fun and then dump them, that would be such a big waste. That's why I think film should stay in that realm of higher end filmmaking where they can be shot and handled properly. I mean shooting film is gonna be a great experience for everyone and I would love to do so if given the chance but most of us don't really need to shoot film to make good films.
The biggest drawback to film is the cost. I've seen indie filmmakers blow their entire budget on tins of film and then they have nothing for post production. Using digital means you can put your budget into other parts of your production (especially post work) and make your film as good as it can be.
Sad to see 20 year olds yearn for clunky victorian era tech and not understanding that progress has a purpose to their benefit. It's like lamenting the abandonment of asbestos or arsenic paint.
@@azv343 oh for fuck's sake! Stop it
@@azv343 sadder go see a farker like you making a farking stupid comment like this.
@@azv343
Digital is not that much better than video tape.
@@azv343
Digital shot movies are not progress or even close to it. 35mm film has a resolution equivalent of 8K and a color presentation that no digital HDR system can even dream about.
Films shot in the 1950s look better than all modern digital movies.
Talking as a still photographer: Film doesn't take better pictures. But it makes me take better pictures. Being forced to take that one perfect shot often gibes me way more impressive results than taking 20 different digital shots and seeing which one is the best.
Yep, just 36 shots to a reel, baby - rather less for roll film. I certainly took more care before the infinite possibilities of digital!
So... placebo! Fair enough
That seems well said and echos this video's sentiment as well. Film pushes you to be more careful about the setup. More purposeful. Digital is more relaxed and allows greater flexibility. You don't need to focus on being perfect for just 1 shot.
Which is better is determined only by what is most important to you. Is it flexibility? Is it working in a confined set of rules? So on and so on.
@@soccerboyluke exactly. Forcing you to slow down means it’s really just a matter of controlling ones mind. Digital is clearly better - and this coming from a guy who loves film.
@@latenightlogic I disagree I don't think we could have ever gotten a movie as beautifully shot as Forrest Gump on digital we had advanced so far with film by the 90s that the bar was set insanely high in my opinion it's the perfect movie to exemplify how far we'd come with movie making techniques. Back when we were still enamored with the magic of Hollywood. Not to say all movies today are bad but they lack that certain passion
As a person who shoots film in a stills camera for fun, I definitely think both formats have their places
This is about Motion movies not still cameras.
@@Chris-ey7zy no shit, Sherlock. That’s why I mentioned that part.
@@AeromaticXD uh huh
@@Chris-ey7zy da frik is this
@@Chris-ey7zy They both use celluloid film, ding dong. To cut costs we would literally do film tests with slide film in kodak stocks similar to what we would shoot on 16mm. Besides the motion, they're literally the same media.
What's important is how the image makes me feel. Film often has a strong texture to it and that makes it a bit more accessible in terms of emotional response...at least for me. That resonance can be replicated in digital movies that are very thoughtfully shot and color graded; the recent "The Kid Detective" comes to mind. But sometimes attempts at digital artistry can fall flat--"Nebraska" is a great dramedy, but its attempt to find it its own visual voice through black-and-white fails, as there was no consideration for how light and texture could really bring the images to life.
It’s more important how it affects a large population, movies are made for mass distribution.
trust me , in 5 or 7 years again digital kamera have more soul than the best seluloid camera at the era , technology grown so amazing, i 5 or 7 years later no debate again Digital Camera is the best
I remember watching “Nebraska” in film class and feeling like it was very flat compared to the other black and white movies we’d watched, like “The Artist”. I didn’t know that was because it was digital and not film!
@@Charlotte-gv8to that's really more because the director didn't understand how to use light.
This channel is amazing and so informative. 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
Directors who master the versatility of the film camera always make the most beautiful films. Dunkirk, Tenet, and The Grand Budapest are perfect examples of why Nolan and Wes Anderson are the best at film beauty.
i'm quite sure there are better examples than Nolan and Wes anderson when it comes to "film beauty".
@@s.singh27 Not really. When I was younger I used to think every movie with cool shots and a clear color palette is beautiful, which they are...but as your eyes mature you start to appreciate the richness of the colors in Dunkirk and which shade of beige goes best with that shade of green...if you know what I mean. So I guess that what contributes to the film’s beauty is the editing (color grading), directing, and production design as well as the cinematography...instead of only cinematography.
@@marcom.3554 You just assumed I was talking about cool shots and cinematography specifically when I didn't even mention all of that. I just said there are films by other filmmakers that are a better examples of "film beauty" and do it better than Nolan and Wes Anderson. While I agree that Dunkirk, strictly in terms of it's visuals, is perhaps the best film from the last decade or so, I think there are still better filmmakers imo to study when it comes to this namely, Wim Wenders, Kurosawa, Alejandro g. Iñarritu, Terry Malick, Tarkowsky, PTA, Bergman, Alfonso Cuaron and obviously Kubrick, I'd say even Ozu can be mentioned here though his films look much more simple as compared to all these other filmmakers but that's how his films are so they're supposed to look like that, I mean the guy literally invented pillow shots. Both Nolan and Wes Anderson work much differently than most filmmakers I mentioned especially since their production designs are extremely unique and it's easier to think that PTA, Wim Wenders, Iñarritu, Terrence Malick, Ozu aren't close to them with their production designs since they usually go with much simpler and natural sets of production, I think in terms of looks, use of all their technical aspects and colour in their films, all these guys are simply better to watch and learn from.
@@s.singh27 I definitely agree with that. Tarkovsky, Terrence Malick, Bergman, and although I don’t like kurosawa’s style as much but it’s still really good. Yes, I believe these directors are so underrated because art has taken a hard dive and everything is spectacle and politically correct nowadays. I just think that Nolan and Wes Anderson mastered the versatility of the camera, especially the way they move the camera and build the sets with colors tailored specifically to look good on film. But then again we have much more technology these days so it’s much easier. The older generation directors did have more natural looks, but then again their films are more experimental with barely any spectacle than Inception for example.
@@s.singh27 Don’t forget Sergio Leone. Once upon a time in the west and Once upon a time in america might be two of the most beautiful films in terms of cinematogrophy!
It's rarely a "choice" these days, unless you're an A-list director with clout.
Not Really true, shooting 16mm isnt thaaaat expensive, just did a short Film (ca 25m) and it ended up being around 10k€ just for the Equipment, the rolls and the development and scan. Thats doable on small Budgets.
I own a 435es and shoot on it quite consistently. I also rent out my camera and work as a loader and strive to keep my rental prices affordable, at least when compared to modern digital cameras.
The prices are comparable, with film coming out marginally more expensive.
Are you thinking of Film Projection? Directors with clout like Nolan and Tarantino are able to get that.
@@CornishCreamtea07 very few people project on film, it's the capture that's the most important part.
@@xx1simon1xx right? I know someone who is a low-budget filmmaker and only shoots in film.
There's an entire documentary about this called Side by Side where Keanu Reeves interviews filmmakers. It's great, seen it may times and never get tired of it.
Honestly, I love film, but digital is infinitely easier to work with. You can pull your phone out and get the equivalent 16mm footage. Shoot a whole feature film on a fucking telephone. My big beef is when people do use film, they grade it to look digital... which I ask; what was the purpose of shooting on film in the first place if you are just going to make it look digital? I say if you're using film, embrace it's natural look. Embrace grain and weird artifacts.
Well, if you are shooting a film using 65mm or 65mm IMAX film stock, you can get a much higher resolution than what most digital cameras can do. So you are futureproofing your picture.
you should do one on Storaro and color theory if you're looking for ideas.
Isn't it already available ?
@@thejubinbennett nope.
@@thejubinbennett oh yes! My bad! I had no idea!!
I actually like electronic acquisition with analog storage on tape, something like Betamax SX. It has its unique flavor, too.
I shot a few student projects on 16mm and loved working with film! It definitely promotes a different atmosphere on set. I'd like to use it more, but in addition to cost, the big problem I have is availability. I live in Utah, and very few projects are shot on film here, and I'm not aware of any rental houses that carry film cameras. I'm glad I took the opportunities to shoot on film when I was a student.
yeah Im afraid people on their phones on set is more of a social issue and the growing lack of common decency we have. im sure if phones existed in the 70's people would be on them twice as much with all the down time. that was a really bad example in this piece. digitally filming and people on their phones have nothing in common with each other. its just rude people and not having set boundaries.
haha I think I understand. Like how I use film cameras for capturing photos most of the time today. The 'mystery' is the thrill, sometimes you will get an unexpected outcome that you cant replicate 100% with digital, it has its own unique character and feels despite digital is far more superior in any other way.
You must add that almost nobody shoots 4 perf 35mm film. The tendency nowadays is using wide aspect ratios and with 2 perf people have that and get double the time recorded so... Only if using anamorphic lenses or really squared ratios you would shoot 4 perf. So it's unfair saying film only gives you 4 and a half minutes every time you use it...
Strictly speaking 3 perf is a lot more common than 2 perf because it's just the right size for a 1:85:1 picture. Also 4 perf is probably more common than 2 perf because of anamorphic lenses.
@@CraigBickerstaff Yes. Lots of movies shoot 4-perf for 1.85:1 and scope extractions just like you’d shoot open gate on the Alexa. I’d say 2-perf is probably still the rarest since most film cameras can’t do it and it’s more of a low fi look. Also most scenes for which you’d need longer recording times you use 1000 ft mags.
Unrelated but I can’t wait for The French Dispatch to come out! Been waiting since last summer for it!
I think the best way to make and watch movies today is too shot the movie on celluloid and then seeing it digitally. In my opinion, one of the greatest benefits of seeing a film shot on celluloid in a digital medium like a 4K disc or digital projector is that when the film is scanned from the original negative, all the grain one sees is what originated on the negative. When a film is projected on celluloid, additional grain is introduced, even if the print is a second generation away from the negative. So ironically, when a filmmaker like Tarantino champions that his films should be seen on celluloid, digital projection can in some ways represent more accurately what the negative captured. One advantage celluloid has had over digital projection for a long time is in contrast and resolution. But with 4K laser projectors I think that advantage will slowly disappear. Especially considering that 99.99% of all movies shot on celluloid today are finished using a Digital intermediate. Which means that even if celluloid prints are being made, they will be struck from that DI and be limited to the resolution of the DI, which most likely will be lower than the resolution of the film print. If you then add on the extra grain and softness that get introduced from the print I think that a film that was shot on celluloid and then receives a 4K DI will look better on a 4K laser projector than on a film print. But I do believe celluloid has the advantage when it comes to older movies that were finished photochemicly and shoot on large formats like 65mm and VistaVision. Because then the true resolution of film is being taken advantage of (as long as the print doesn't come from a digital restoration of that movie, even 2001 a space odysseys 8K restoration probably don't take full advantage of a 65mm print, but digital restorations has of course other benefits, like damage removal.) After the introduction of the Digital intermediate the full potential celluloid has been lost when it comes to resolution, but has also given the filmmaker more freedom with color grading and special effects. I look forward to the day when 8K,10K,12k DIs are the norm.
digitally scanning film isn't an issue. its a great thing. and people who say they can see the "digital nature" of the scans are full of it. digital capture? maybe, but not digitization period. Same way with audio. these 'I can hear the difference between digital and analogue' are also full of it. recorded at high sample rates you cannot tell. though theres a big market for that "analogue sound" but with emulation software it comes down to 99.9999 percent of people not hearing the difference. wars have been fought over this but I have yet to run into someone who could differentiate.
Nothing can match the quality of film reel in cinemas. No digital system can even come close to it.
@@bighands69 im a film lover, but this comment is a little unrealistic. we've come VERY close to it. of course nothing will ever look exactly like film, otherwise it would be film. ive seen some color grades and science emulation that hits so close its scary. and im not talking about slapping on random grain generators. talking about the real deal. ive seen things shot on an Arri Alexa and graded by industry pros and you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference.
@@flipnap2112
I am sorry but it is not even close. 35mm film has a minimum resolution of about 8K and a color palette that no digital system can even get close to. It is the reason why film from the 1950s look far better than any digital movie today.
The gap is so wide that nobody would really be fooled. What people are talking about is watching a movie on a digital format such as a TV or digital cinema and fooling them self that there is a comparison.
@@bighands69 I dont mean to be rude, honestly, but you dont seem to understand the subject were discussing. resolution isn't the issue with digital VS film. the human eye cannot resolve 8K film scans VS 8k capture. its the same thing. and film had MANY resolutions depending on what ASA/ISO you shot at (example, low light film was grainy as hell, thats called bad resolution) . And again, I think this entire thread of discussions isn't about watching something on a digital TV VS analogue. If you watched "JAWS" on a modern digital TV with no "motion"effects and on a normal color profile you couldn't tell the difference. Of course watching an analog projector with a film gate shutting on and off is a mechanical difference that, in my opinion, looks terrible. I appreciate your love of film, as Im a HUGE analogue film lover. but your comments are misguided and while you have good intentions youre speaking of vastly different things here.
when i started working at a movie theater, they still use film. but when a company takes over they switch it to digital. i kind of like both formats they are ok.
The most important thing is not the look. It's the message. You can deliver it in many ways.
Honestly, Digital can look even better than film when the story fully enhances the the medium. Take, 'A Hidden Life' by Terrence Malick. One of the most stunning movies I've ever watched shot all on RED camera.
Agreed
What exactly do you mean by the story fully enhancing the medium? How does A Hidden Life do this? I've only ever heard of the medium enhancing the story, not the other way around.
Digital looks horrible compared to film. There is not one movie shot on digital that can even come close to the likes of Vertigo or Ben-Hur.
Blade Runner 2049 looks horrible compared to Blade Runner.
@@bighands69 "Blade Runner 2045 looks horrible compared to Blade Runner" Not even close stop constantly dickriding film and start spelling 2049 correctly.
@@ary2860
What are you talking about please explain.
I think we all understand the differences, but thank God there is still the option to shoot film, for particular movies that need this extra artsy look, particularly when the style of the movie is going towards the theatrical, when it’s more about the acting and the sets rather than just the spectacle itself.
430$ for 4 minutes of film now that’s insane though, I didn’t think it was that expensive, I thought it would be more like 4 times cheaper for a roll but knowing this surely adds an even greater value to it, even though I already value film more than I do with digital since I ditched digital photography over film over two years ago.
To each project it’s own I guess, but film will always be closer to the hearts, because film is material, and everything that materialises in our reality is of greater value than something made up or just displayed on a screen.
It’s true for all art categories, either it being silver gelatin prints for photography, paintings on canvas, vinyl and real instruments for music.
We can deal with the compromise, just like we can appreciate watching a painting on a screen without owning it, same with music through mp3 but I don’t know, I think it goes further from the spec of movies really, it goes deep into the metaphysical, it’s a subject that cannot be truly grasped, we will always be the ass inbetween two chairs with this.
I don’t know what this life is, but surely without art it wouldn’t be worth it that’s for sure.
Best filmmaking channel hands down
I hate how most modern movies shot on film still do all of their effects and coloring digitally so it ends up looking nearly EXACTLY the same as if it were shot digitalitally *ehem* Christopher Nolan ... what was the point?
I mean, it's kinda part of the process? I get what you mean but they're going to be projected digitally so it's not like anyone is going to notice.
@@subashpariyar5965 can you tell if a classic movie was shot on film if it is projected digitally? Of course. Digital TV, monitors and projectors don't affect the filmic look. It's all in the post processing.
@@zallesproductions I am, most people go for the movies and don’t care either way.
He shot Interstellar with IMAX and Inception with digital camera.. you can clearly see the difference.
@@subashpariyar5965
That is not true. People can tell the difference as they can understand the quality has declined even though they may not understand why they can see it. No modern digital movie can look anywhere near as good as Vertigo or Ben-Hur.
I love your videos. I love film and the look. Keep it up! Favorite Cinema Channel
In film school we shot on film (and a lot of us even cut on film, tho I didn't have the chance to even though we were taught how to). Shooting on film was dope af, and super fun. Like the video indicated, it really makes you regard how you shoot and stage the action in front of the camera. If I could, and the story necessitate that it would be better told with film, then I would shoot on film without any doubt, but that sh*t is expensive as hell and time consuming, and as a low budget filmmaker time is very precious cuz time is money. But damn, I miss shooting on film so much. lol
I had no idea that was the case. I've never been to film school, but I pictured that with all the aspects of filming they would need to teach, they would what to speed up that process of shooting.
@@CornishCreamtea07 Well, my experience at film school may or may not be quite different from others because of the particular film school I attended (the Film Directing Program at the California Institute of the Arts), which is one of the last film schools in the U.S. that still had students shoot on film (at least when I attended. I graduated there in 2014. For all I know, there could be way more film schools having students shoot/cut film since then). When we did shoot film it was usually 16mm (tho I heard that very seldom a student would shoot something on 35mm). However, we usually shot digitally, I did all my major projects with digital cameras as did most others. But the other non-animation oriented film program there, the Film/Video Program, where they emphasize more experimental/documentary/essay filmmaking, they usually shot more stuff with film, and a lot of my friends from that program can cut on film...and still do. In the Film Directing Program, we dealt with more narrative filmmaking, so we concentrated on scene study, screenplay writing, acting, scene blocking, film theory and analysis, working with actors, etc, so the craft of filmmaking like film lighting / cinematography, gaffing/gripping, celluloid film editing, film developing,etc, was taught more or less but not emphasized or concentrated on so to speak. But, yeah, as for the process of shooting on film there’s no real way to speed it up because it’s still chemistry, which relies on time, so unless a person can change the laws of physics and/or time travel there’s no real way the instructors at the school could alter the curriculum to make the process and red tape go ‘faster’. So if students wanted to shoot on film the first thing they had to do, for their own sake, is plan ahead and allow yourself that time. If I had more time I would have shot more film, but because that graduate program was so rigorous the luxury of time was something I could never seem to grant myself.
I learned mostly 16mm in film school. Senior year we did our thesis on 35mm, but i wasn't on camera team. I just love thst film look. Digital is getting there, though.
@@mattmorelli9833 Out of 100 digital movies maybe 5 come close to the film look. Digital just generates more ordinary looking and feeling movies I think, a forgetful experience instead of a movie going experience.
@@prashanthb6521 i feel the same way. It just doesn't quite have the same dreamy magic as film does.
9:31 I really feel that Eastman Double X is having a bit of a comeback lately: The Lighthouse, Malcolm & Marie, and now The French Dispatch.
Pls make a Cinematograpy Style vid on Santosh Sivan especially stuff like the moving train dance in Dil Se(A dance scene which was rehearsed and shot on a real moving train) and The whole of Iruvar or the long shot Snow run in Roja,He usually collaborates with legendary Director Mani Ratnam or you could do it For the cinematographer Subrata Mitra who shot the films of One of the greatest directors ever Satyajit Ray,he also invented bounce lighting in film
Solid stuff here! Thank you for your hard work on delivering this quality piece of content. I love both film and digital but like the DP mentioned it does have a magical quality that is hard to replicate.
I have done film and digital a lot. I prefer digital. Film is cool, but it is a pain to work with. I am bias, though. I love that digital motion blur look in movies like Collateral, Black Hat, or Miami Vice. Basically all the newer Michael Mann movies.
The best outcome is always the hardest and requires the most effort. That is true for building cars, furniture or producing art.
@@bighands69 That is just objectively untrue. You can easily make something more difficult to do and it give no benefit to the end product.
@@TechnoBabble
There is no easy way to produce art and anybody that tells you that is talking crap.
I really enjoy Yeoman's perspective. For the life of me I can't understand why some DPs insist on only shooting on one or the other. To me that's like saying there a certain focal range of lenses they won't use.
Very nice video. You really destilled this complex controversy to its basics. Thank you.
Man great seeing you growing from those early 2k followers to almost 200k. Keep the great work. 🙌🏻✨
I loved shooting film for weddings (Kodak Portra), but the extra cost of film, processing, and printing proofs meant that I couldn’t compete price-wise with digital shooters. I had to switch.
The look can absolutely be fully emulated. Go watch Steve Yedlin’s display prep presentation
Properly treated high quality digital film can be made to look however the DP or Colourist wants. So the only way to tell film and digital apart these days is to look for the imperfections in the film. Which can also be emulated into the digital presentation. But 9 times of 10 when presented with the choice the DP and Director don’t actually want those imperfections
Not true at all. The Yedlin demo was very flawed in its approach. The only way to match it up as close is possible is to actually shoot it in both formats and try to match in post (which defeats the point of shooting digital). He did not shoot under common situations. I saw no daytime exteriors in high foliage areas, no beach shots with water, natural landscapes, etc. It was a weak test, tbh.
@@matthewphillips5483 Did you even watch his video? He literally shoots the same thing with both and then, without even trying to match them perfectly, made the Alexa look enough like film that nobody could tell the difference. In the video he explains that he did nothing special for his test, just a generalized "standard" developing of the Alexa footage to make it look like film, no manual matching.
Digital Camera sensor sensibility curves are optimised for high colour accuracy and therefore very near to those of the human eye. Film materials usually have bigger sensibilities outside the visual spectrum, that they translate to parts of the visual spectrum. This can't be reproduced in post. You would have to build a camera sensor with the same spectral sensibility curves to have the exact same result /look. This can likely be done, but is probaply not worth the effort.
I love shooting film when the story requires it.
Has anyone done an actual blind test to see how often someone can tell digital from film? It seems silly to claim one format looks better than the other when everyone has their own biases and they already know whether something was shot on film or digital.
Steve Yedlin has done some amazing comparisons on his website. His conclusion: digital images can reliably and consistently be processed to look like film (and vice-versa). If your capture medium can hold enough image data, and you know what you're doing in post, the film look isn't so "magical"
IMAX camera is the beast.
Digital Camera sensor sensibility curves are optimised for high colour accuracy and therefore very near to those of the human eye. Film materials usually have bigger sensibilities outside the visual spectrum, that they translate to parts of the visual spectrum. This can't be reproduced in post. You would have to build a camera sensor with the same spectral sensibility curves to have the exact same result /look. This can likely be done, but is probaply not worth the effort.
Analog Film: Just as the human eye sees our world
Digital Video: Just as an electronic artfificial eye sees our world
@Mee Omi It's the other way round. Film sees like your eyes. This is why lights and colours and contrasts look more natural on film. Especially the fuzzy glow of lights. While video image sensors are having a lot of trouble with that.
@@KRAFTWERK2K6 I’ve noticed this too.
a film lab in my city rolls Kodak double X for 35mm cameras and the bw that you get is just unique
the problem at the 9:00 mark is that digital has too much dynamic range. the brights are too intense and the darks are too easily washed out. look at any space shuttle launch filmed on film vs digital.
I prefer the authentic look of film personally. Film grain, softer and more vibrant colours, heck even the film jitter, it all made older movies feel like they're actually in a fictional world and that you're not watching something that looks just like you'd see in everyday life. I think this largely changed around 2005 or 2006 ish onwards when digital took over. This is all my personal preference, I'm aware it may sound odd to others but I just wanted to share my feelings.
I know it's weird but I often hate how sharp digital can look.
Yea there's an artificiality about digital
I started when you pretty much had to shoot on film to be taken seriously. Filmmaking back then really was FILMmaking. 16mm or 35mm (forget Super 8 even). Believe it or not, there was "snobbery" even amongst film shooters. 35mm shooters looked down on 16mm shooters who looked down on Super 8 shooters who all (including me) looked down on video shooters. At $1000 per 11 minutes for 35mm film/processing alone, that format was out of the question, so 16mm was the best I could do (I also shot Super 8).
When Spielberg was starting out, he shot only Super 8 and 16mm. He was told that in order to be taken seriously as a filmmaker, he HAD to shoot a film in 35mm, so he did (that film was Amblin). Imagine living in a time when that was the case. You don't have to deal with that anymore. I caught the tail end of that era.
I was a "shoot on film only" snob up until 2008 (as bad as Tarantino) when I finally conceded that digital HD video was starting to look good and I finally turned to the "digital darkside" (rather quickly). I actually bought a Sony PMW-EX3 (Philip Bloom's video won me over). This was just before the DSLR "filmmaking revolution" which I didn't see or anticipate at that time. Even the industry was finally loosening their standards. I've since upgraded to a PXW-FX9. The image quality is astonishing on that camera.
Now I say just shoot with what you have. Just make something interesting. It sort of mattered what you shot on back when I started. VIDEO was never really taken too seriously by the film industry. There was FILM and there was VIDEO. Now it doesn't matter. You can get away with shooting on standard definition video these days. Blair Witch was mostly shot on standard definition video. That was probably the real game changer when it comes to what format to shoot on.
To me the real true "digital revolution" was in postproduction, not cameras. Film was expensive, but FILM POSTPRODUCTION was ridiculously expensive and much more of a pain in the ass. It wasn't SHOOTING on film that stopped me in my tracks. It was postproduction. Good riddance to the days of linear flatbed and videotape editing. Be glad you don't have to put up with that. I have yet to say good riddance to film as I'd still like to shoot something on 35mm some day.
Those starting out today are lucky to have all these tools at their disposal and not have the industry shut you out simply because of what you shot on. I would've killed to have the post production NLE editing tools (and the cameras) that are available to everyone now. I would've gotten so much more done. So much easier and cheaper.
It's not about the look really, but rather the fact you can remaster film into a new digital version in 20 years
yeah they forgot to mention that
@Frank Silvers for higher res or a CGI overhaul
@Frank Silvers by upscaling it
Beyond just the look, the main reason I prefer to shoot on film is that I can say as a fact that the image we see on the monitors is not how it's going to look on the big screen, it is not what we're shooting. We can waste time and watch recordings from the video tap all we want but we know the video tap only records every frame that wasn't exposed on our filmstock. Watch dailies on the big screen, not on set!
I love shooting film (stills with my SLR). But I just can't afford it due to development costs. Plus not having many local options to drop off the roll to get developed.
An excellent explanation of both media. Well done.😅
I used to make a good loving being a film protectionist only 10 years ago. Lol. I clearly have a bias.
Film was so much fun. The argument of which is better could go on forever, both have pros and cons.
I believe film is far more simpler than digital. With film, you have the film stock, a light meter, lenses and camera while digital has DITs, lots of wires and decks and a whole bunch of other accessories that you have to deal with and then there's the extensive post production. Shooting digitally just seems more much more complicated than when it started out with tape based cameras like the Sony F35/Panavision Genesis.
Have you even touched a digital camera before?
How about digital designed to reproduce the film effect.
7:36 never heard someone in the industry call them rushes. Maybe it’s because I’m from the USA but over here we call those “dailies”
They were "rushes" in the UK - but it's quite possible that US terminology has taken over now!
David Lean was very ecomical using film. He was an editor first, selecting what he needed.
Making a film is three things in one.
The Look
The Light and
The Lenses to tell a STORY
I don't think that film looks better to anyone on an objective level, rather it's just a matter of what you're used to, or what has been originally stored in your brain as "good". Same as e.g. someone liking an older car which was a desired/modern look in his youth when his feelings toward the subject (and therefore impressions into brain) were stronger.
The same goes for FPS - 24/25 fps gives us what we know as the movie look, but only because we're used to it.
Basically the only thing I see valuable with film is the mentioned focus/value of each moment when the camera rolls, and everything that goes with it. But I may be wrong, I'm just a newb.
Anyways, thank you so much for these wonderful videos! 🍀
I really love what you do, keep going
I love that the old school guys love film so much, but it’s more of a nostalgia thing than an actual quality thing. When there isn’t a nostalgic attachment to that look, film will go mostly extinct - just like black and white or silent films. It’s just a natural evolution.
Actually no. Older movies 🎥 shot on film 🎞️ look so much better on 4K blu ray 📀 than the newer ones shot on digital
I beg the differ on your statement regarding to B&W and Silent films going extinct. They are not medium they are genre and style that can be done with digital if one is creative enough to express it. Just remember that the latest silent film ever made was an Oscar Winner from 2011.
I haven't seen Love &Mercy yet, and it would be nice if you captioned movies you show shots from as well as gear. I
I am sometimes bothered by the vibe people give that the goal of digital is to attain the same aesthetic look as film. I suppose I get why that is, but I also like the look of digital _as_ digital. That's not to say I think the look is better than film, but I also don't think it's worse. It just is, and I like it. I don't think it has fully come into its own as an aesthetic choice, however, as it is still relatively new, and many filmmakers continue to focus on trying to make it look just like 35mm film.
I whole heartedly agree. If you look at Fincher, he nva tries to mimic that film aesthetic (except mank, but that was bcz of the story he was trying to tell). If u look at Mindhunted, he embraces the digital look and results amazing imo
That's true. I heard when Spielberg made Ready Player One, he shot the scenes in the virtual reality world digitally and the real world on Film, to give contrast between both.
Yep. Digital looks clean which i personally like.
More than film vs digital or cinematography I am more interested in HOW these cameras are made and how to improve film and digital cameras for the future. I always see cinematography videos but never videos on how to make the cameras themselves or get into the field of making new film & digital cameras. Who does this? Where can I start to learn this? Any video recommendations or links? Thanks!
Digital cameras are electronics and computers, so I would suggest a degree in electronics, information technology or similar. For film cameras mechanical or electrical engineering would be the right choice. Arri regularly has job openings for all sorts of development jobs on their website, so maybe take a look there. But there isn't really a job were you design and build a complete camera, it is usually a big team, because they are so complex. Film & Digital Times has a few interviews with engineers at Arri and other companies, maybe that could give you an insight.
@@janludwig7286 ah interesting thank you for the insight! So i cant really build a camera myself just work on a team that helps build and improve on cameras as a unit, huh? Thanks again I will look into the things you mentioned!
@@Orangeflava It all depends what kind of camera you want to build, it is totally possible to build something that spits out an image, but if you want to rival current digital cinema cameras you will need a team of skilled engineers for color science, electrical , optical , mechanical engineering and software engineering. But even then some parts you won't be able to manufacture yourself, even a lot of the most high end camera manufacturers outsource manufacturing of the image sensors, because you need equipment that cost tens if not hundred of millions of dollars for that. There have been people trying to build cameras themselves in the past, the Cinemartin Fran comes to mind, but that failed spectacularly.
@@Orangeflava Get into chip fabrication and start your own foundry to compete with TSMC and you might be on your way.
@@martinlutherkingjr.5582 chips huh? Okay! And what is TSMC? Thank for the tips!!
Would love to see a whole video comparing different film stocks!
The DP speak my thought (even tho I'm no body). Film grain is a flesh of a film. Every frame has difference dot of grain position. When you run a movie film in the projector, it creates a moving grain on a picture texture, make the picture's flesh look alive, and it works on your mind in subconscious level. It's not about color, you can do color adjustment to death, the digital video will never turn into film movies, as close as you can get is to add digital grain to it which in turn sacrifice sharpness (fix by have more resolution on raw). Another thing that I hardly find any professional mention, which might cause confusion on new filmmakers is : film grain is not film noise, they're related but not the same thing.
How do you add CGI when you shoot film (which, I guess, is often needed today)? Is the film digitized? Does it affect the look?
Today all movies shoot on film are scan on digital in 2, 4 or even 5K and, if you need, you can add CGI on. This is a thing that Branagh or Nolan, who use sometimes 65mm film, do. With 16mm and 35mm is not a big deal add CGI on, 65mm is the right choice to do it because the size of frame and his low grain (this is why most of the blockbusters with visual effects shoot on 35mm are partially shoot on 65mm too... and this has been done since the dawn of time, look ‘Blade Runner’, original ‘Star Wars’ trilogy or ‘Ghostbusters’).
In these years if your movie need a lot of CGI like ‘Avatar’ you need a digital camera, and when you shoot on film is preferable using practical effects. Someone before me said that use film depends on the story you want to shoot and I agree with that, because make a movie with a certain visual or genre where there is no need of any effects (special or visual), but there is the right amount of money by the production, you can point to the film. In the other side, or for artistic choices, point to the digital.
@@lucaiacona6756
They can also project the special effects on to film and then and then layer it to the film process later if they desire.
As transformation of digital photography from analog one, motion picture industry also moved to digital format. In the end it doesn't matter.
Great video. I would love a video like this with a colorist/DI post person.
Does Kodak Vision always have a yellow cast? Even when it's the Tungsten version?
Kodak traditionally skews slightly warm and Fuji slightly cool.
I definitely think 35mm and digital are now indistinguishable at times, but Super 8/16 and 65/70mm all have qualities that just can’t be properly replicated digitally, yet.
Hmmm..... could you go digital -> film -> digital scan?
I can’t believe people are still arguing about the so-called magical quality of film when Steve Yedlin’s demos are out there for everyone to see. It shows a lack of research when his work isn’t even mentioned in a video like this.
But there is a certain aspect to it that can’t be recreated. It may not be as prominent as people act like it is but it’s still present. The biggest thing I notice is a certain softness without losing detail.
If it's an image thing it absolutely can. Watch his demo.
I could easily tell the difference between film and digital in his demo's. Sure, digital would do just fine too, but there is a quality to film, and it can range from small to huge. But often it's multiple small elements that come together to make the overall disparity larger. Many people confuse this because they can't see the whole image at once due to how eyes work, so they focus at one part, see some minor differences, and think "basically the same". But really the differences are also not just in what you see that you're focused on, but what is also just outside of what part of the scene you're looking at. I've studied film and making digital look like film extensively for years. You can get something approximating film, but you cannot match film.
I've exhaustingly tried to come up with my own methods using photo editing tools. But what it really needed is a complex simulation and a super computer to physically simulate every aspect, and even then it wouldn't be perfect because you wouldn't have the full photonic information of a scene. You could use a digital image and make each pixel simulate a photon and give it a wavelength value and stuff and that would take things closer.
Keep in mind, film is actually "3D". In that, the layer that captures light is not 2 dimensional. The layer with silver grains is made up of multiple planes of randomized grains, some closer, some further. When film is exposed, the image is spread out across multiple layers, based on wherever the grain happen to be in the path of light, whether higher or lower in the substrate. There is a quality to this aspect that cannot be recreated, it can create a kind of depth to the image. If you looked at film through a microscope and looked at the grains, then slightly moved the film a little to the left or right, you would actually see these layers creating a kind of shifting effect.
Even the grains themselves have varying sizes and are offset at varying angles. Even when you condense these attributes into a single digital pixel, the pixel will have its own value different than digital gives. Edges and micro contrast between details will also have different values and different hard/soft gradients in small details.
Then there's the fact that every single frame of film will have its own individual characteristics. No two arrangements of grains will be alike from frame to frame. This extreme level of randomization, combined into a moving picture, allows for minor changes in micro contrasts and noise, which culminates into shoring up the look and feel. In effect, it's like taking multiple but slightly different physical readings/samples of a scene, at the wavelength level. For digital, you're basically only sampling once and pretty much getting the same result. You get a pretty much fixed result, with only the randomization of digital noise.
A lot of people don't realize it, but digital noise affects images more than people think. It's always present, meaning it's messing with even the "clean" pixels, throwing off their final true result by shifting their color/brightness from slightly to greatly. That does not happen with film, as film records the true real world result without noise. Yes, the grain make a noise-like pattern, but the light that hits the grain has imparted its effect based on its wavelength. So in a true sense, when film is exposed, it's actually noiseless and a pure reading of light and contrasts between light and dark, only on tiny disparate structures that impart a pattern on the image that we call noise, but it's not noise, it's grain.
And I still haven't even scratched the surface of everything that gives film its attributes, from color science to chemicals that affect how film expresses colors when developed. Sadly though, converting film to digital does degrade its qualities, because of course things do get condensed to fixed pixels that can only display soo many colors and fine details (not necessarily to mean picture sharpness, but any film aspect details). Most people have never actually viewed raw color stills, let alone a raw projected film image.
Even when movie theaters did display actual film, those are just copies of copies of copies. All the glory of the original is still somewhat degraded because it takes two steps to make a film copy of film: First projection to turn the film negative into a film positive, then another projection to turn a film positive back into a film negative, which is what people would see in theaters.
You're still talking about his demos, people were convinced Knives Out was shot on film late 2019 before he and Johnson confirmed it was shot digitally, its becoming harder for audiences to ascertain what's film and what's not.
@@peoplez129 if film is 3d as you put it then the fact that there is a bayer array or 3ccd arrays in digital sensors also make it 3d. Steve Yedlin perfectly matched digital to film and I am legitimately willing to bet 100 dollars that you wouldnt tell the difference in a double blind test. your whole rant reeks of the similar subjective bullshit that audiophiles use to shill snake oil. at the end of the day when viewing on a screen pixels are pixels so there is literally no way you couldve told the difference between the two. also your talk about how noise is not noise and how light is truly captured by film is fucking stupid. real life doesnt look like film. Could it be that our eyes dont capture light as accurately as film? of course not. just the fact that different film stocks produce different looks means that film doesnt accurately capture light otherwise all film would be the same in terms of look. stop larping online as a professional on what film is when you make stupid statements like 3d film and pure reading of light.
Don't know if this is a weird case of deja vu but didn't you make a video about Film Vs Digital wherein you said the Medium is the Message?
GOLD 👏👏👏
Hey, you previously made a video about the same subject matter & how the medium is the message but now it’s removed, why did you do that & is there a chance you would reinstate it?
How can one attach a video assist monitor to a film camera?
Good point
it's an honest doubt, i really want to know
Honestly, not much different than how you attach an external video assist monitor to a digital camera.
@@DyenamicFilms But is there a video signal coming out of the film camera? Does it have some kind of sensor then?
@@lucas_mozer It's a small separate piece of equipment called a video tap. It's basically a tiny camera that attaches to and peers through the optical viewfinder of the film camera. Then the signal is routed to the monitor. When professional film cameras are running, you'll see flicker from the shutter when looking through the viewfinder, so you'll see this flicker on the monitor as well.
As an indie director myself I personally prefer digital especially the Arri Alexa as it’s quick, small and easy to set up, there was only one scene of my first feature film that used 35mm and it was a flashback of the protagonist’s parents, needless to say my DP did a lot of the work handling it as I was completely unfamiliar with how to work with a film camera
Real movies shot on film take time. They are not a process of convenience. It is not about shooting something for the sake of it.
@@bighands69 What a dumb comment. If the quality difference is non-existent (An Alexa is better than 35mm film in both convenience and quality) than why not use the more convenient and cost effective option. It's such strange mindset to want your work to be more difficult for no gain, you don't gain anything from shooting on film.
@@TechnoBabble
Film as n 35mm has a resolution with a minimum of about 8K it also has a color process that no film can get close to.
Digital is great for TV shows where people are watching on a digital TV system but in a film with a 35mm film projector or 70mm it is not even a contest.
The only way most of you will understand is if you see both film and digital in a theatre.
@@bighands69 that's just false. Normally film is equivalent to circa 4k, with the best conditions it could go up to maximum 6k. But honestly who cares about resolution? Seaech "filmbox" by videovillage, it's a plugin for davinci resolve that can emulate film in an undistinguishable way. It's just amazing. I'm a lover of the film look, but when this plugin went out it just destroyed all the arguments about the "look" and the "quality". The new alexa 35 has almost 1 stops of latitude more than film stocks, so, I'm sorry to say film is now currently surpassed
Recently saw “Death On The Nile” (2022) in 70mm, and I can say there is most certainly a difference. It’s unfortunate I couldn’t enjoy the film the way I had hoped as I was intentionally looking for the distinctions as it played. I’m happy to say you don’t need a trained eye to catch the distinctions, you’ll see it relatively easily. Pay close attention (as I was) and you won’t miss any of it. That said, if you’re lucky enough to catch a film in 70mm or even 35mm, don’t bother forcing your eyes to look for the differences, you WILL see it, and if you’re closer to the back of the theatre, as I was, you’ll also hear it (only film aficionados will understand that last part 😂)
See as much in 70mm print as possible everyone, there’s a certain magic to it 👍🏽
We need to stop calling them “movies”.
What we need to instead call “movies” shot on film stock is “chronophotographic sequences”.
What we need to instead call “movies” shot digitally is “video recordings”.
Absolutely on the use of cell phones on a hot set. Insta-fired if you pull that here.
I wish film was more affordable for indie filmmakers.
@6:50 "take your phone off set if you have to make a call, it's very distracting". WTF, why would any film maker allow phones on set. Tarantino is famous for no phone set which keeps everyone focused on making a movie.
Ahh man I'm gonna buy one of those Arri Alexa cams it's about time now
Greetings. Could anyone please tell me the name of that Sony Model appearing at the 2:14 time mark? I'd really appreciate it. Cheers!
I believe it is the Sony Rialto which is actually an extension for the Sony Venice.
@@DyenamicFilmsThank you so much! Kind Regards
Since I grew up in the digital era, I've never pictured myself shooting on film
But that doesn't mean I don't defend some old school aesthetics
For instance, I prefer practical effects over CGI
Imagine making endgame and thanks was practical effects. It would look too jankey and wrong. Good cgi is needed
Beaverboss Endgame is essentially an animated movie.
Shot some stuff on Super 8, one thing I didn't realize is that it color corrects nothing like digital I'm having trouble finding tutorials online
In the 1950s they could layer special effects on film either through art or secondary shots of live action.
There are no modern digital movies that look anywhere near as good as the likes of Vertigo.
i love how you used shots from spy movie
I tend to agree with Yeoman. But just this year I was completely bamboozled by First Cow. I was SURE it was shot on film, and I found an interview with the DP where they were asked "What stock did you use?" not "Film or digital?", the interviewer was so sure it was film they just asked about the stock. And the DP said "Oh it was all digital." I do think eventually it will be indistinguishable with the right treatment in the right scenario.
This debate has been happening for 15+ years, I still can't understand why it's still a debate, digital far superseded film years and years ago on that simple fact, even industry veterans assume something is shot on film when it wasn't. I can't believe there are kids 10 years younger than me today that have never handled film and somehow still romanticize it.
If you see a movie shot on a film camera that is then shown on a film projector there is simply no mistake.
No digital system can even come close to that process. 35mm film has a resolution of 8K (minimum) and has a color presentation that no digital HDR system can even come close to.
@@bighands69 "8k minimum", please stop, this is getting embarrassing. 35mm film is objectively lower resolution and has less dynamic range and a smaller colour gamut than modern cinema cameras.
Is there any point shooting on film if it's going to be digitally projected anyway?
I love film for still giving the best resolution and colours compared to digital photos
I think digital is the only way to go for filming, however when it comes to archiving, film is the only physical option to preserve a record. Digital file rot is very real. There's a reason microfiche is still in use today.
Those *bing* sounds made me think my microwave had gone berserk.
Everyone talks about matching the film look when I think the strength of digital is to create looks that film cannot.
Exactly. Digital is significantly for flexible, especially if you have one that shoots RAW.
Digital is horrible looking and that is about the only thing it really offers.
@@bighands69 It also offers longer recording times and easy on set back ups.
@@bighands69 So horrible that it's got a larger colour gamut, higher resolutions, and more dynamic range.
Not sure if this is true, but I'm sure the biggest difference is with Film your not tied to a specific resolution, but with digital your tied to your 8K / 4K resolution? Lets say in a few years when 8K is considered potato resolution, what do you do then? at least with film you can scan it i think?
Just scanning film at a higher resolution doesn't mean it will magically resolve more detail. The size of the grain and the size of the film itself determines the upper limit and digital is already far better than the best 35mm.
Forget 8k.even 720p film is beautiful
Great video! The first time I shot film I fell in love with it. I have a video on my channel talking about 16mm!
I was really hoping since the narrator said a couple times that he thinks digital can almost match film that he actually named some of the digitally shot movies that came close. Anyone have any examples?
There’s something to the distinctiveness of film. Especially when people want to stand out, it provides something different :) For my still photo work I shoot Hasselblad and do optical prints and it definitely is unique. There’s something to a clown sized color print off a medium format negative :)
6:10 why is this the funniest thing ive ever seen? xD
Great content as usual.
BTW can you shoot a movie with both digital and film cameras? Or you "have" to choose one type.
The Irishman, The Last Jedi (the movie not the argument, please) and Da 5 Blood to name a few film use both digital and film.
Of course you can. But you'd need to digitise the film footage to edit digitally with the digital footage later.
That "ping" sound you use during the explanation is exacly as my microwave's, and its confusing me a lot 🤔
Conclusion :-
*Film is film*
*Digital is Digital*
I think a lot has to do with our expectations of what we are familiar with as well. This is why most people shoot at 24fps. were used to seeing scenery stuttering on faster pans and if it doesn't it somehow looks cheap. in the grand scheme of things thats weird. if you NEVER saw film before and watched a 60FPS pan and a 24FPS pan, not a single person would say the 24 looks better. film has a warmth to it though and its just in the nature of the analogue processing of the pipeline. but in todays world with all the tools we have its become a pretty tight gap. even in the prosumer market we have cinema cams that are ridiculously good looking for the price and image..BMPPC 6K pro for example is a steal for what it gives you.its funny because were in 2021 and people are scrambling for ways to make their music or film sound and look analogue. but if you went back to the 70's and showed them the digital capture and pipeline they would be crying.
@Frank Silvers this is all HIGHLY debatable AND subjective. But I am referring to the objective point that the processes involved with developing and the nature of gelatin-silver gives a certain look that many consider "warmth" and offers analogue possibilities such as cross processing that cannot be achieved in digital. perhaps the "warmth" is referring to an image that can only belong to analogue.
@Frank Silvers I wasnt referring to warmth in the clinical sense of color science..
@Frank Silvers I don't think youre gettin what im putting down. im not talking color temperature. if someone has warmth in their heart, their heart isn't yellowish.
@Frank Silvers dude really? let me try this.. "Warm, also commonly referred to as amiable- referring to having a pleasant manner.".. don't be so clinical. I explained it twice already.
@Frank Silvers
I gotta go with film. Fight club still looks sharp today is due to the expensive film they used.
insightful
Hard to understand why we still can’t mimic the filmlook. Even consumer graphics hardware is capable AF, but when it comes to some color grading everything fails. What kind of unmeasurable mystery is this filmlook?
Thats like trans. Sure you can do operations on female to make it look like male, but it will always look something off about it.
Ive always loved digital, and if given an unlimited budget i would still choose video. Its my favorite to shoot with, and I prefer the philosophy behind shooting with it.
not again? are we still debating this?