When it comes to Digital vs Film, I think people get too caught up in the "Old vs New" aspects of it. Film gives you a warm nostalgic mood to the picture, while digital seems sharper and closer to how my eyes actually view the world. I think that, much like "practical vs CG effects", there isn't one that is downright superior than the other. It's up to the director to look at the tools at their disposal, and decide which works better for the look and mood they wish to achieve.
Ryan Cox Exactly. Just look at the palates in this vid (even though the content seems to be pro-digital). The film side shows a palate commanded by "bold" colors, while the digital side's palate is commanded by pastels and shades.
Ryan Cox OFC film will win here watch lotr vs hobbit and you will understand digital video its sucks battles are not even "true" and dont tell me cgi beacuse is not only cg /cgi fault.
Ryan Cox That's the thing: The progress in digital goes towards higher definitions--sharper images (so you don't see the pixels), which lead to a quasi-3-D "you-are-really-there" vividness. I'd imagine the faster frame rates helps with that, too. But those improvements--which are what digital needs in order to progress (again, the "pixel" thing--which does NOT have the pleasing effect that film grain does)--make it "seem" less and less like film. In the end, one is not better than the other (claims of pro-digital militants notwithstanding). Each has its own specific "look" which the other will never be able to truly duplicate. It all depends on what you want your film to look like.
You can put an Instagram filter on your photo if you're a hipster and want that dumb "classic look". If you want high quality, easy to work with images, then digital is the way to go.
When I shot this, DSLR's for video had just come on the market at the consumer level and weren't common place just yet. The film was Kodak 16mm 200 ASA film stock.
+Andrew Procter Sure. You should have been able to tell us what 16mm camera used and what exact film stock, yet those details are missing. Even the VHS part is a fake Lightroom creation.
+Wologan B. Clearly, you have no clue of what it takes to shoot, develop and scan film. It takes some skill and isn't cheap. If you had any experience with film you would have spotted the faked 16mm part.
Long live film ! Btw, Keanu Reeves brought me here. Check out his documentary on this topic. The documentary is called 'Side by Side', and I think its pretty obvious he favors film over digital and feels pretty strongly about it for obvious reasons. I hope film never, ever leaves.
So much depends on the camera, development and transfer. I've worked in digital for decades (FX) but one thing I always liked about film is that it is a process - and a process has variables (in this case light, chemical compounds, temperature, time etc). Because it's a process mistakes can be made - and therefore some great art. Art loves mistakes.
You couldn't be more wrong. Calling digital lifeless is an insult to the future of cinema. Some of the greatest movies in the past few years were shot in digital and they are amazing. Don't be closed minded.
I use the words 'lifeless and flat" because I don't know the technical lingo as to why I like film more. I just do. I like how tactile film stock is. I also like how it's 24 individual pictures for every second of footage. It creates this illusion effect that I equate with cinema. But I feel digital motion picture cameras(despite the price tag for some of the high end cameras like the Red or Arri) are still in that 1990's camcorder stage in terms of cinematic-ness.
Jesse G Still, that's wrong. I agree, film is amazing looking, my favorite is probably 70mm. But to say high end digital motion picture cameras look like 90s camcorder's is almost a joke. You're talking about color grading. If you don't color grade your footage than of course it will look "lifeless and flat" this works with film as well. If you look at a movie from Clint Eastwood, he likes to washout his movies almost to a bland gray scale. This is an artistic choice made my him and the editors, it has very little to do with the cameras. Look at "The Revenant" That was filmed with an Alexa Arri 6k. It's color seems to be more of a washout blue and gray to fit with the "cold" theme of the movie. Jupiter Ascending, although the movie was pretty bad, looked amazing. It's highly saturated and almost looked like film. Also shot on a Arri. Also, if you knew anything about cinema you'd know that digital also takes 24 individual pictures as well, it's not just film.
I agree, because I love the way, film looks. even 35mm or 70mm, without any structure, have a unique kind of feeling to it. But I can understand some filmakers shooting digitaly as well. If you want to sell a movie today, nobody wants to see grain size and scratches and all these charming things- movies have to look like the world your eyes are viewing. And it`s cheap as well. I calculatet the costs of a 70mm hollywood movie and I came up with 6000$ and I have not included some outtakes or not-used scenes. Shooting with a digital camera is much more cheaper and easier. But I´m happy to see people like Tarantino and Anderson, using real film cameras.
Actually there is impossible to make electronic visual recording to make much better than they originally are. It is good as it is. No way to improve. Especially digital. I made Mini DV footages 2001 -- 2010 and now those videos look horrible compared to HD. But nothing to do. the amount of information is so limited. Same case is with digital photos -- if they are small they remain small. But analog recordings include so much information that there are enough room to improve the quality of the output picture. Old 8mm films are scanned nowadays massively and the sacnnings are going better and better every year. It is simply amazing. Digital editing is very good and there are many ways to improve picture if the original material include enough information. So it would be optimal if original footages are filmed into analog film and later edited digitally.
+margus kiis The same issue applies to film stocks. Film stocks got better, the same way digital cameras got better. People probably looked at old negatives they shot in 1968 compared to the ones they shot in 1991 and through they looked like crap too. Film has limited resolution too, a small negative on film remains a small negative no matter how much you blow it up. Did you ever intend to use your material from 2001, 15 years later? I'm sure its done its job, plenty of DV material did its job in stellar fashion, it told stories and got the storytellers paid.
jackeatley i guess saying you cant make them better is probably not a fair statement..everything can be improved in some way form or fashion be it lighting, color correction, clarity or what have you.
Premator The last Star Wars movie in 2004/2005 used a Sony CineAlta HDC F950 digital camera, which had an extended dynamic range (sadly I cannot find any numbers) and recorded the footage in 4:4:4, which no camera for 500 USD nor 500 € does. The BlackMagic Cinema Pocket Camera comes close with its RAW mode and its price of 1000-1 USD.
Analog & Digital can get along in hybrid form: example you shoot digital and print it in analog substrate, or shoot film and view it and print it in digital means. I use both methods, and in the essence both options were invented and refined so that one can take a photo; capture important moments in life, tell a story. That's the core idea and end-product of imaging anyway, and sometimes people forget that.
Digital looked a lot more real than film. Digital is the way to go guys. Some people just hate change, even if it's better that way and in my opinion it's definitely better in film-making. I could say a lot of reasons why I would choose digital cameras over film, but it's easy to research. Some hints: the best cameras are all digital nowadays and better ones come out each year that I think already beat most film cameras, they are also easier to work with, faster to work with, less room for f"cking up your shot, which is very ideal, easier to edit and release to the public and also cheaper, but there are other small details to it as well. We could argue about it all day, but the most important thing is, film cameras are going away for a reason and digital takes over because film-makers who aren't afraid of change realise it's better to work with for multiple reasons and digital cameras simply look better and you can do more with the footage especially if you shoot in RAW (Arri Alexa, Red Dragon, Sony F65 etc.).
I started in digital and got fed up with the fake looks and that I became a digital artist rather than a photographer artist so I discovered film and ditched the ugly digital camera for a more beautiful medium. Film is not superior, it is something different
While digital has many advantages over film (e.g. cheaper, easier to edit, more clean) there is one thing that it is rubbish at doing: storing information for a long period of time. This is because there is no permanent, universally agreed upon format for digital. Many formats of digital exist but most aren't compatible with each other and most of these formats cannot be played because the machines needed to play them don't exist anymore. For example, in 50 years there may be no more functioning VCRs so if you have VHS tapes that haven't been converted to a newer format you are screwed. Also, a format may no longer be used (e.g. MP4 may be abandoned in 25 years so any MP4 files you have then will not be viewable as the software to play that video format will be forgotten for a more efficient format). Hard Disk Drives are a bad way to store data because if you don't use the hard drive for a long period of time the platters stick together but if you regularly use them the mechanisms wear out and the hard drive is essentially dead. Solid State Drives need electricity on a regular basis to maintain the data but they have a limited number of read-write cycles. They also fail more suddenly than HDDs meaning you could turn on your computer one day and the SSD isn't working. Cloud can be hacked. Even USBs have problems for long-term storage. Contrary to popular belief, film is a better storage medium than digital storage medias. This is because once you make a print of the film, you can store and a hundred years later all you need to do is to shine light through it and you can watch the movie. The reason you can do this is because there is a universally agreed upon format for film which has been the same since 1909 and likely isn't going to change anytime soon. Even if it does, only light is required and some calibration of the projection system and you can enjoy the movie. Modern film stock is a much higher quality than the film stock that existed 80 years ago as back then the film degraded, was easier to tear and the nitrate-film stock was flammable. Today these problems are fixed. I'm not saying that film is better overall but as a storage medium it works way better than digital. If I were a director, I would make the movie on the digital format and store a copy on film.
Film is dreamy and romantic. Digital is real and cold. I like both for different reasons. Film is just sort of nostalgic and feels like a dream to me :)
Shooting on 120 film is so much better than any digital camera I've used. I usually carry around both, I use digital when I just want to go nuts and take dozens of photos. My medium format camera I only get 12 shots. Film has forced me to develop an eye for what I want and make sure the shot is perfect because I have none to waste.
I'm sure I'm in the minority, but overall, I consider digital to be a superior format. I do love film for what it is, but it's more as an interest in the format than an actual superiority.
A really fun comparison! It's funny because my parents prefer digital because of how "real" they say it is, while I make the same argument for my preference for film.
I will say that the transfer from 16mm to digital was not done like it could have been. A good colorist will give it a stylized film look with proper skin tones and saturated just enough. Plus things I like to have them do like add a slight vignette so it draws you in a little. I am glad to see the film here wasn't dark and under exposed, or over. I love shooting film and am hoping it continues to make a comeback.
I had a 70's Yashika camera , and I tried to scan and digitize those old taken photos. Problem is that I couldn't zoom to any details at the background or even t some faces if they were a little farther away.
I think the digital thing is more in the US. From what I know, in Europe there are large film communities and in Japan film is still very popular. People that are interested in photography usually use and experiment with both. People that just get a digital camera to shoot zillions of nonsense are uninterested in photography anyway and in the film era they were getting cheap point and shoot cameras just to shoot pictures (which is not bad, they're just not interested).
Digital is very more better, people think film is better, but colors in film are dirty, red looks dark red, blue is not deep, yellow skin, green of grass looks dry grass, sky allways is overexposed, looks cyanish and never blue. In comparission to digital version, printing process of a printer on silk-paper it looks clean colors, spectro is wider than film for far. Now well, if you compare to watch a movie throw a digital projector image is absolutely better than film projector, because was necesary to positive the original negative film, in this case the original negative 35mm is better, but not projectable finally. 10 is the same when people say that vinyl records are better than CDs compact disc, an absurd defense of a lost cause. Greetings from 🇨🇱
Many answers to that question. One of them is that filmmakers have more freedom to move around and find interesting angles(digital just needs a way to send the data to a computer from the chip instead of being a big lump on the camera). Then there is the question of cost; buying film, converting it to digital for effects, color correcting and increasingly just to show the film (projectors are going digital).
Usually I prefer film over digital but sometimes it’s necessary for a film to be filmed in digital such as la la land because that movie is all about sharp bright colors, but that doesn’t mean that film should die out just because digital is easier and cheaper
it couldnt be more incredibly clear yet not directly implied that this video was done as a college project (without reading comments or vidoe description)
@omg101man you scan the negative in a lab (there are actual labs that do this, sort of like the your average kiosk at CVS or Wal Mart that develops film photographs, except more expensive) then you can ask them to scan it to digital after developing - give it to you on a DVD or BluRay, the rest is just simple encoding to files and such.
Shooting in film, there really is no point anymore. Today its easy to emulate film look with film grain in post production, everything can be done with some plugins and the Adobe package, you can even acquire the organic look but it does require a high level of understanding colours, formats, resolution, frames per second and technical specifications for film itself.
I hope to be a director someday, and I would also like to shoot film rather than digital. I don't get that just because of all this advanced technology, it means that we HAVE to accept it. Who cares for it really? Some of the greatest directors don't even shoot digital. Scorsese, Spielberg, Nolan, and Tarantino all shoot film, and they all make freaking awesome movies. There may be some ups and downs to both film and digital, but it doesn't mean that one is obsolete and weaker and should be ultimately replaced.
Cobalt Falcon Well no one is stopping you from shooting film except that film will run out, the production has only been prolonged for now because the big five directors pushed for it. But I am not a big fan of Kodak format I prefer Fujifilm and Soviet formats because Fujifilm is warmer in colours and Soviet formats have really cool blueish dark and hot blue elsewhere looks really cool. Of course either of these are no longer in production and the best you get are old stocks from eBay. Its cheaper for me to just emulate it in post production.
***** The point is: When I shoot digital I take 100 shots per hour and 99 of them are throwaways. When I shoot film, I probably will keep 30 per cartridge. I love shooting with both cameras, SLR and DSLR, but my old 1978 lady runs even with flat batteries (they power only the light meter) and will probably last for many decades. The new DSLR Body will become obsolete within only a few years. Good film is still available and according to my local store, the sales are even rising a bit The only thing going away is the mainstream consumer crap from the drugstore.
Ysanne Korpov Film as in 35mm negatives and slides etc still exists yes and are still in manufacturing but I was talking about motion picture film as in 8mm, 16mm, 35mm, 65mm and 70mm Which most of them have ceased production as far as I know, Kodak still manufactures 35mm and 70mm for the big five for a few more years and there are some Chinese manufacturers who make Sovcolour knock off film in three formats, 16mm, 35mm and 70mm but its hard to get by those unless you actually go to China and acquire them. I know Chinese government uses them to film their promotional films and event films. Also if you have a Nikon D750 you have superior dynamic range and colour range to film, even if you shoot both the mediums its all about framing if you shoot 100 shots and 99 are thrown away I think you need to look at your framing of the images I know it was an exaggeration but it helps trying to aim for the best picture to begin with instead of just going for _quantity has a quality_ attitude.
***** Not true. Film does not have pixels that blend into one another. Mechanical cameras don't need batteries to work. You don't have to turn them off in the airplane. They don't **** around refocusing and taking light meter readings when you push the button so they don't miss the shot. You set it to what YOU want and it stays there. They don't assume what you think the photo should look like and choose the wrong shutter speed which leads to a blurry subject (with an exquisite background!). About the only good thing digital has over film is that you don't have to wait a week to get your photos back. I also don't complain if I don't catch fish when I go fishing. Photography is not a race but when it is, I simply attach a motor winder to my Minolta.
for all you hardcore film enthusiast out there, quit pushing it..it just turns people off, if they try it one day, and if they have enough patience and passion for their art/hobby/whatever they will fall in love with it too...dont push it, promote it! if you feel you must express yourself about it. In the meantime, shoot it if you got it and enjoy it as much as you can while it's still around, it's an experience.
@simozonelayer Oh, I already have one. I've shot on it before, it takes beautiful shots... when taken properly. The last time I used it, I didn't have a clue what ISO, aperture, f/stop, etc did, so the pictures ended up coming out terrible, expect for one shot that looked really nice. When I enter University I'll get a film 'video' camera, preferable a timeless Bolex Super16, which run about over $2000 for a whole kit. It would seem more appropriate then. Do you own a DSLR?
Firstly, I'm going to an indie film fest for 3 days, staying at a hotel this weekend. In order to raise the money for the hotel room, I entered a video contest and won a cash prize. Secondly, I'm an indie filmmaker. Not a big-time or good one, but an up and coming one. In order to get anywhere, I've been watching the crap out of any film I can find, but only the good ones. I'm sorry if I watch a few videos I can't see elsewhere and give input. And I'm studying the film/digital debate anyways.
I agree. However, you can get very convincing results with digital post-processing. When I want to just have fun and shoot great pictures I shoot film. When I'm in the mood for post-processing I shoot digital. The thing with digital is that you can get extremely good results via post-processing as I mentioned before and automatic features which would require more time and effort in film. It certainly helps produce good results more easily but takes all the fun out of shooting and composing.
I have been wondering A lot whethere alone with this crap ton of money i have now whether i should spend it on a film camera or just a digital camera, i have noticed the people who use film are very artsy people.
I think film would be more natural because it is light hitting the film and exposing it directly. Digital cameras process all the light and convert it to an image. I'm not sure how it compresses all of that data, but it does typically look less dirty than film.
Yes, you can. It has been done so since the late 1980s, when digital film editing arrived and film was still the format to capture motion pictures or TV series on, and it was done so in the 1990s and 2000s and 2010s. Digital film making has just begun to rise since the 2000s and has really risen with the RED One and Arri Alexa and other digital cameras. The Dark Knight Returns was shot analog, but edited digitally.
film has taught me the theory behind a camera, how a camera works, restraint with shots, and how to be patient. but has been ruined by hipsters. digital has revolutionized photography, made trips to the lab obsolete, instantaneous results, auto when feeling lazy, and no money wasted on film. but has been ruined by pseudo-photographer teens using their mom's credit card to buy expensive cameras they don't know how to work. film and digital go together, hand in hand. respect for both.
Using Film makes you take your time in deciding what to capture. It makes you use your imagination more as you are limited to what you can capture. Although digital can be great at time, Film just seems more interesting to me.
I always liked film more, the colors are deeper and although it could use some correction, it's still very great compared to digital, but that's not to say digital looks awful. It has its qualities, such as less grain and a stable shot, personally I like the shaking film scans
Most lenses for film cameras, if not all, have you able to manually adjust aperture and/or exposure while shooting. To make it look modern and have no grain, I recommend getting an adapter for a c-mount camera so it can use a Canon lens. A Bolex EBM is one of the best 16mms ever, but $8,000. Look around for a local film developing/scan business. Some are bad, some are great. Should cost around $250 for a full 400' reel. To edit directly, get a film splicer and projector. PM me for more details.
well, i mean, my sister is a photographer and she has found alot of film and instant cameras, but im refuring to the film ones, i could tell you its not gonna be easy for me to find a film camera that will take near 1080P video, the fact you have one is amazing for me, because if i could, i would leave digital and go to film. film makes me happy!
Digital just looks so much sharper and refined. Film blurs the details of the pictures. comparing digital and film pictures of people to each other, its almost as if film morphs the very shape of a persons face.
One Village In Color Noted. I'm very used to digital lens cameras. I recently found an old lens camera from my Fathers garage and was thinking about playing around with it to see if i can get it to take comparable pictures. I suppose you would argue that the main issue with film is that it slowly degrades if not converted to digital. A lot of 70's/60's movies are like that, they have a yellow grainy tint to them which makes them somewhat annoying to watch.
Film can still handle contrasty scenes much better than digital. Even if the dynamic rage is equal, which it still isn't with many digital cameras beside the Alexa, the falloff from the straight line portion of the curve on the toe and the shoulder looks much more natural with film. You can still see detail in areas that are 4-5 stops over. That being said, film is incredibly expensive and isn't worth it for most projects.
Well yes you're right. For movies and tv. I should have specified I was talking about commercial photography. I'm a retoucher and all the editorials, lookbooks and campaigns I have to do, I receive digital raw files, never scanned films. But yes for motion pictures films are still widely used and yes film is beautiful.
I think everyone can agree Film is better if your looking for the Cinema image. But film lacks the clarity that digital has, and replaces it with detail, lighting (ambience). But honestly. with HDR in the modern age now. Digital + HDR seems to be the strongest of the two. Is HDR is used properly ofcourse. nearly half a decade ago we can all agree FILM had it's advtange, but.... NOW? I dont think so. I'd choose a Digital HDR over a Film HDR anyday. Or does anyone else have a different perspective?
I miss the fun of working in a darkroom, processing the films, and printing them. There was a variability with Film and film processing that is now gone, and so has the art that goes with it. As a result it makes printing as repeatable as pressing the Print button; where as in the darkroom, when printing a shot under an enlarger every picture printed could and would be different. Digital has made Photography robotic and boring.
I've recently gotten into film, i have many digital cameras and am looking for a cheap film camera that I can use to make some short films with. I don't have the slightest clue of how film cameras work and am willing to learn. Any recommendations on a cheap film camera thats easy to use?
James Vaughn Yeah, look on ebay or at a goodwill store. I scored a camtec camera that I took apart throwing away the film shutter and lens. I replace it with a piece of sprite can with a pinhole. The winding mechanism was left to accurately advance the film. I can't wait to go taking some pix with this 'homemade' pinhole camera.
Bing Crosby and Mel Blanc (voice of Bugs Bunny, among dozens of other characters.) Likely from Bing's radio show, where Blanc was a member of the cast.
You can take lots of pictures in digital, you can view pictures instantly with digital, you can easily manipulate pictures with digital, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. The reason I still have a film camera is that you just can't replace the look of a film photo. I also use a digital camera, because I'm realistic and admit I like being able to take lots of pictures.
Here is a good film vs. video comparison. These two music videos were directed by the same person and shot by the same person. One was shot on a 30-40 year old 35mm camera, the other on a brand-new Canon 7D DSLR. Can you guess which is which?
Digital is 100 times better than film. I can shoot indefinitely by using digital, while with film I was too restricted to how much pictures I could take. Once I've gone digital I never looked back.
The best film has infinite data since its an analog. They could always be remastered to look better than the best Blu Ray. Digital has a clearly defined limit of pixels which cannot be avoided when zoomed in.
Nice Video :) Bytheway i use digital aswell as film, but i can assure you that with the right film and lens you can achieve a quality that digital sensors can only imagine...
Digital will just be a new option. It will never replace film. Replacing film with a technology that barley started a decade ago is just absurd. Digital is going to peak at some point. It's fine for people to be excited for digital. It'll be a great lower cost way to shoot a project. But yet I've yet to see anyone rise through the ranks using digital. Only established directors have adopted it. Film will be the exception if anything. It'll never fully go away. It might be less used, but yet still used often enough to be forever relevant and in my opinion better looking. I think film will be more for the major league film makers at the bare least. For the Nolan's and Spielberg's and everyone else who is pro film. No one is going to tell a film maker who's brought them BILLIONS of dollars in profit that they can't shoot in their desired format. . Digital will be a great training ground for up and comers and people getting started. Or low budget, independent projects. Not every project NEEDS to be shot on film. Which is fine. I think both can be great in there own ways. Both have pros and cons.
Well what do you know, I stand corrected. I suppose the price on that thing is insane though. Same quality would run you much less in a film camera, although new film is a constant cost to take into account.
The only differences I find is film is more fun! I like the challenge of finding a good subject and actually thinking as to weather or not it's worth a frame of film, rather than running around aimlessly shooting everything a deleting all the crap. I started with digital and found film, it's all about what you enjoy about photography! But trust me I'm not throwing out my digital!
Film vs digital debate is just another, contemporary form of the universal extremism of human thinking. Fact is most people don't know what blur reduction on their TV is... Quality is not important for the most part, especially since today you can get a camera for 500$ which exceeds the quality of digital cameras latter installments of Star Wars used. Having said that, nothing yet matches the resolution of just 35mm film. Digital formats are intrinsically contemporary. Film is future-proof.
![Lil Uzi Vert - Chill Bae [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/D7F42F_JM3U/mqdefault.jpg)
We see in Video, we dream in Film.
When it comes to Digital vs Film, I think people get too caught up in the "Old vs New" aspects of it. Film gives you a warm nostalgic mood to the picture, while digital seems sharper and closer to how my eyes actually view the world. I think that, much like "practical vs CG effects", there isn't one that is downright superior than the other. It's up to the director to look at the tools at their disposal, and decide which works better for the look and mood they wish to achieve.
Ryan Cox Exactly. Just look at the palates in this vid (even though the content seems to be pro-digital). The film side shows a palate commanded by "bold" colors, while the digital side's palate is commanded by pastels and shades.
Ryan Cox OFC film will win here watch lotr vs hobbit and you will understand digital video its sucks battles are not even "true" and dont tell me cgi beacuse is not only cg /cgi fault.
Βασίλης Τσαβαλιάς The main problem with how The Hobbit looked had much more to do with them doubling the frame rate to 48 fps.
Ryan Cox That's the thing: The progress in digital goes towards higher definitions--sharper images (so you don't see the pixels), which lead to a quasi-3-D "you-are-really-there" vividness. I'd imagine the faster frame rates helps with that, too. But those improvements--which are what digital needs in order to progress (again, the "pixel" thing--which does NOT have the pleasing effect that film grain does)--make it "seem" less and less like film. In the end, one is not better than the other (claims of pro-digital militants notwithstanding). Each has its own specific "look" which the other will never be able to truly duplicate. It all depends on what you want your film to look like.
agreed
Good video and smart message, thanks to remind the real goal of photography and its derivates (cinema, animation, etc).
The film image is so much better, it's got a classic look to it. The digital just looks too clear, like live TV. I hate it.
you can manipulate the digital to look like film easily.
BijouCinema Never achieved the quality of the film , even professional photographers use old lenses prefer more than new
Canon + Magic Lantern + you actually having skill manipulating images = The left side of the screen
You can put an Instagram filter on your photo if you're a hipster and want that dumb "classic look". If you want high quality, easy to work with images, then digital is the way to go.
***** its not about quality it's about emotion
There’s something about analog that will always make what your filming seem more interesting. Less clarity allows for more imagination
The so called 16mm on the right is really a DSLR at 24fps and touched up to look like film.
When I shot this, DSLR's for video had just come on the market at the consumer level and weren't common place just yet.
The film was Kodak 16mm 200 ASA film stock.
Liar
+Andrew Procter Sure. You should have been able to tell us what 16mm camera used and what exact film stock, yet those details are missing. Even the VHS part is a fake Lightroom creation.
+Wologan B. Clearly, you have no clue of what it takes to shoot, develop and scan film. It takes some skill and isn't cheap. If you had any experience with film you would have spotted the faked 16mm part.
Yea, the blown out whites are the tell tale digital signature. Both scenes have it... LMAO.
Long live film ! Btw, Keanu Reeves brought me here. Check out his documentary on this topic. The documentary is called 'Side by Side', and I think its pretty obvious he favors film over digital and feels pretty strongly about it for obvious reasons. I hope film never, ever leaves.
it's 2020 now and film is not dead
So much depends on the camera, development and transfer. I've worked in digital for decades (FX) but one thing I always liked about film is that it is a process - and a process has variables (in this case light, chemical compounds, temperature, time etc). Because it's a process mistakes can be made - and therefore some great art. Art loves mistakes.
Film looks so much better, has that movie type color grade. love it
The highlights are handled so much better on film than digital I think.
LOL these are both digital. You can tell by the sensor grain on the right.
Welryuyyrhhkekekekekkekekekekekekkekhhekhekhekhrki
Exposed, disliked, and unsuscribed😎
16mm all the way. I love the texture. Digital doesn't have any texture. It's just lifeless and flat. Not cinematic at all.
You couldn't be more wrong. Calling digital lifeless is an insult to the future of cinema. Some of the greatest movies in the past few years were shot in digital and they are amazing. Don't be closed minded.
Film vs Digital is just like Paper vs Flash.
You can do better-looking things with Flash, but if you're lazy, your movie will be lazy.
I use the words 'lifeless and flat" because I don't know the technical lingo as to why I like film more. I just do. I like how tactile film stock is. I also like how it's 24 individual pictures for every second of footage. It creates this illusion effect that I equate with cinema.
But I feel digital motion picture cameras(despite the price tag for some of the high end cameras like the Red or Arri) are still in that 1990's camcorder stage in terms of cinematic-ness.
Jesse G Still, that's wrong. I agree, film is amazing looking, my favorite is probably 70mm. But to say high end digital motion picture cameras look like 90s camcorder's is almost a joke. You're talking about color grading. If you don't color grade your footage than of course it will look "lifeless and flat" this works with film as well. If you look at a movie from Clint Eastwood, he likes to washout his movies almost to a bland gray scale. This is an artistic choice made my him and the editors, it has very little to do with the cameras. Look at "The Revenant" That was filmed with an Alexa Arri 6k. It's color seems to be more of a washout blue and gray to fit with the "cold" theme of the movie. Jupiter Ascending, although the movie was pretty bad, looked amazing. It's highly saturated and almost looked like film. Also shot on a Arri. Also, if you knew anything about cinema you'd know that digital also takes 24 individual pictures as well, it's not just film.
I agree, because I love the way, film looks. even 35mm or 70mm, without any structure, have a unique kind of feeling to it. But I can understand some filmakers shooting digitaly as well. If you want to sell a movie today, nobody wants to see grain size and scratches and all these charming things- movies have to look like the world your eyes are viewing. And it`s cheap as well. I calculatet the costs of a 70mm hollywood movie and I came up with 6000$ and I have not included some outtakes or not-used scenes. Shooting with a digital camera is much more cheaper and easier. But I´m happy to see people like Tarantino and Anderson, using real film cameras.
Actually there is impossible to make electronic visual recording to make much better than they originally are. It is good as it is. No way to improve. Especially digital. I made Mini DV footages 2001 -- 2010 and now those videos look horrible compared to HD. But nothing to do. the amount of information is so limited. Same case is with digital photos -- if they are small they remain small.
But analog recordings include so much information that there are enough room to improve the quality of the output picture. Old 8mm films are scanned nowadays massively and the sacnnings are going better and better every year. It is simply amazing. Digital editing is very good and there are many ways to improve picture if the original material include enough information. So it would be optimal if original footages are filmed into analog film and later edited digitally.
+margus kiis im not sure I agree that when it comes to digital recording or images you cant make them better.
+margus kiis The same issue applies to film stocks. Film stocks got better, the same way digital cameras got better. People probably looked at old negatives they shot in 1968 compared to the ones they shot in 1991 and through they looked like crap too. Film has limited resolution too, a small negative on film remains a small negative no matter how much you blow it up. Did you ever intend to use your material from 2001, 15 years later? I'm sure its done its job, plenty of DV material did its job in stellar fashion, it told stories and got the storytellers paid.
jackeatley i guess saying you cant make them better is probably not a fair statement..everything can be improved in some way form or fashion be it lighting, color correction, clarity or what have you.
Premator The last Star Wars movie in 2004/2005 used a Sony CineAlta HDC F950 digital camera, which had an extended dynamic range (sadly I cannot find any numbers) and recorded the footage in 4:4:4, which no camera for 500 USD nor 500 € does.
The BlackMagic Cinema Pocket Camera comes close with its RAW mode and its price of 1000-1 USD.
Analog & Digital can get along in hybrid form: example you shoot digital and print it in analog substrate, or shoot film and view it and print it in digital means. I use both methods, and in the essence both options were invented and refined so that one can take a photo; capture important moments in life, tell a story. That's the core idea and end-product of imaging anyway, and sometimes people forget that.
great short man. just graduated film school and in the industry now, and this was remarkable work. keep it up man.
Digital looked a lot more real than film. Digital is the way to go guys. Some people just hate change, even if it's better that way and in my opinion it's definitely better in film-making. I could say a lot of reasons why I would choose digital cameras over film, but it's easy to research. Some hints: the best cameras are all digital nowadays and better ones come out each year that I think already beat most film cameras, they are also easier to work with, faster to work with, less room for f"cking up your shot, which is very ideal, easier to edit and release to the public and also cheaper, but there are other small details to it as well. We could argue about it all day, but the most important thing is, film cameras are going away for a reason and digital takes over because film-makers who aren't afraid of change realise it's better to work with for multiple reasons and digital cameras simply look better and you can do more with the footage especially if you shoot in RAW (Arri Alexa, Red Dragon, Sony F65 etc.).
I started in digital and got fed up with the fake looks and that I became a digital artist rather than a photographer artist so I discovered film and ditched the ugly digital camera for a more beautiful medium. Film is not superior, it is something different
While digital has many advantages over film (e.g. cheaper, easier to edit, more clean) there is one thing that it is rubbish at doing: storing information for a long period of time. This is because there is no permanent, universally agreed upon format for digital. Many formats of digital exist but most aren't compatible with each other and most of these formats cannot be played because the machines needed to play them don't exist anymore. For example, in 50 years there may be no more functioning VCRs so if you have VHS tapes that haven't been converted to a newer format you are screwed. Also, a format may no longer be used (e.g. MP4 may be abandoned in 25 years so any MP4 files you have then will not be viewable as the software to play that video format will be forgotten for a more efficient format).
Hard Disk Drives are a bad way to store data because if you don't use the hard drive for a long period of time the platters stick together but if you regularly use them the mechanisms wear out and the hard drive is essentially dead. Solid State Drives need electricity on a regular basis to maintain the data but they have a limited number of read-write cycles. They also fail more suddenly than HDDs meaning you could turn on your computer one day and the SSD isn't working. Cloud can be hacked. Even USBs have problems for long-term storage.
Contrary to popular belief, film is a better storage medium than digital storage medias. This is because once you make a print of the film, you can store and a hundred years later all you need to do is to shine light through it and you can watch the movie. The reason you can do this is because there is a universally agreed upon format for film which has been the same since 1909 and likely isn't going to change anytime soon. Even if it does, only light is required and some calibration of the projection system and you can enjoy the movie. Modern film stock is a much higher quality than the film stock that existed 80 years ago as back then the film degraded, was easier to tear and the nitrate-film stock was flammable. Today these problems are fixed.
I'm not saying that film is better overall but as a storage medium it works way better than digital. If I were a director, I would make the movie on the digital format and store a copy on film.
Lmao... How old are you? You realize all that you mentioned doesn't apply anymore right? haha... hard drives, that's a good one. Try SSD buddy :)
Film is dreamy and romantic.
Digital is real and cold.
I like both for different reasons.
Film is just sort of nostalgic and feels like a dream to me :)
Film WINS!!! HANDS DOWN!!! My eyes kept being drawn to the side shot on film. It's simply superior and has a majestic look to it.
Nice!! I love the softness of film. feels different
Shooting on 120 film is so much better than any digital camera I've used. I usually carry around both, I use digital when I just want to go nuts and take dozens of photos. My medium format camera I only get 12 shots. Film has forced me to develop an eye for what I want and make sure the shot is perfect because I have none to waste.
Very, very clever side by seide comparison, even the momentary double exposure on film was brilliant
Thanks! It was a lot of fun
polaroid cameras are so fun! I bought the new ones just to have them.
While I absolutely don’t despise digital, and appreciate the practicality of it, film just looks a thousand times nicer.
I'm sure I'm in the minority, but overall, I consider digital to be a superior format. I do love film for what it is, but it's more as an interest in the format than an actual superiority.
THe music fits the video in such a manner that's hard to not like it.
Honestly, I like both. Both have good and bad sides.
A really fun comparison! It's funny because my parents prefer digital because of how "real" they say it is, while I make the same argument for my preference for film.
I will say that the transfer from 16mm to digital was not done like it could have been. A good colorist will give it a stylized film look with proper skin tones and saturated just enough. Plus things I like to have them do like add a slight vignette so it draws you in a little. I am glad to see the film here wasn't dark and under exposed, or over. I love shooting film and am hoping it continues to make a comeback.
Not what i was looking for but enjoyed the video
I had a 70's Yashika camera , and I tried to scan and digitize those old taken photos. Problem is that I couldn't zoom to any details at the background or even t some faces if they were a little farther away.
I think the digital thing is more in the US. From what I know, in Europe there are large film communities and in Japan film is still very popular. People that are interested in photography usually use and experiment with both. People that just get a digital camera to shoot zillions of nonsense are uninterested in photography anyway and in the film era they were getting cheap point and shoot cameras just to shoot pictures (which is not bad, they're just not interested).
I'm from Europe no one gives a fk about film here.
@@narcisraw1762 I'm in Europe too. This comment was 7 years ago
@@efstathioszavvos4878 oh shit I did not realize. that's amazing.
Digital is very more better, people think film is better, but colors in film are dirty, red looks dark red, blue is not deep, yellow skin, green of grass looks dry grass, sky allways is overexposed, looks cyanish and never blue. In comparission to digital version, printing process of a printer on silk-paper it looks clean colors, spectro is wider than film for far.
Now well, if you compare to watch a movie throw a digital projector image is absolutely better than film projector, because was necesary to positive the original negative film, in this case the original negative 35mm is better, but not projectable finally.
10 is the same when people say that vinyl records are better than CDs compact disc, an absurd defense of a lost cause.
Greetings from 🇨🇱
Many answers to that question. One of them is that filmmakers have more freedom to move around and find interesting angles(digital just needs a way to send the data to a computer from the chip instead of being a big lump on the camera). Then there is the question of cost; buying film, converting it to digital for effects, color correcting and increasingly just to show the film (projectors are going digital).
Usually I prefer film over digital but sometimes it’s necessary for a film to be filmed in digital such as la la land because that movie is all about sharp bright colors, but that doesn’t mean that film should die out just because digital is easier and cheaper
it couldnt be more incredibly clear yet not directly implied that this video was done as a college project (without reading comments or vidoe description)
I learned photography on my mom's old Pentax film camera. I'd always get film for my birthday, haha.
I do both digital and film. I have a Canon EOS 60D and Canon A-1 which I had it since the early 1990s.
Wow.. i always thought film was inferior.. but this looks incredible. Wow.
great video.... where did you get the 16mm camera? which type was it? and what stock did you roll?
@omg101man you scan the negative in a lab (there are actual labs that do this, sort of like the your average kiosk at CVS or Wal Mart that develops film photographs, except more expensive) then you can ask them to scan it to digital after developing - give it to you on a DVD or BluRay, the rest is just simple encoding to files and such.
Shooting in film, there really is no point anymore. Today its easy to emulate film look with film grain in post production, everything can be done with some plugins and the Adobe package, you can even acquire the organic look but it does require a high level of understanding colours, formats, resolution, frames per second and technical specifications for film itself.
I hope to be a director someday, and I would also like to shoot film rather than digital. I don't get that just because of all this advanced technology, it means that we HAVE to accept it. Who cares for it really? Some of the greatest directors don't even shoot digital. Scorsese, Spielberg, Nolan, and Tarantino all shoot film, and they all make freaking awesome movies. There may be some ups and downs to both film and digital, but it doesn't mean that one is obsolete and weaker and should be ultimately replaced.
Cobalt Falcon Well no one is stopping you from shooting film except that film will run out, the production has only been prolonged for now because the big five directors pushed for it. But I am not a big fan of Kodak format I prefer Fujifilm and Soviet formats because Fujifilm is warmer in colours and Soviet formats have really cool blueish dark and hot blue elsewhere looks really cool.
Of course either of these are no longer in production and the best you get are old stocks from eBay. Its cheaper for me to just emulate it in post production.
***** The point is: When I shoot digital I take 100 shots per hour and 99 of them are throwaways. When I shoot film, I probably will keep 30 per cartridge. I love shooting with both cameras, SLR and DSLR, but my old 1978 lady runs even with flat batteries (they power only the light meter) and will probably last for many decades. The new DSLR Body will become obsolete within only a few years. Good film is still available and according to my local store, the sales are even rising a bit The only thing going away is the mainstream consumer crap from the drugstore.
Ysanne Korpov Film as in 35mm negatives and slides etc still exists yes and are still in manufacturing but I was talking about motion picture film as in 8mm, 16mm, 35mm, 65mm and 70mm
Which most of them have ceased production as far as I know, Kodak still manufactures 35mm and 70mm for the big five for a few more years and there are some Chinese manufacturers who make Sovcolour knock off film in three formats, 16mm, 35mm and 70mm but its hard to get by those unless you actually go to China and acquire them.
I know Chinese government uses them to film their promotional films and event films.
Also if you have a Nikon D750 you have superior dynamic range and colour range to film, even if you shoot both the mediums its all about framing if you shoot 100 shots and 99 are thrown away I think you need to look at your framing of the images I know it was an exaggeration but it helps trying to aim for the best picture to begin with instead of just going for _quantity has a quality_ attitude.
***** Not true. Film does not have pixels that blend into one another. Mechanical cameras don't need batteries to work. You don't have to turn them off in the airplane. They don't **** around refocusing and taking light meter readings when you push the button so they don't miss the shot. You set it to what YOU want and it stays there. They don't assume what you think the photo should look like and choose the wrong shutter speed which leads to a blurry subject (with an exquisite background!). About the only good thing digital has over film is that you don't have to wait a week to get your photos back. I also don't complain if I don't catch fish when I go fishing. Photography is not a race but when it is, I simply attach a motor winder to my Minolta.
Well, now the video makes much more sense! I thought the split screen was for a 3D effect. THANK YOU FOR THE ENLIGHTENMENT.
for all you hardcore film enthusiast out there, quit pushing it..it just turns people off, if they try it one day, and if they have enough patience and passion for their art/hobby/whatever they will fall in love with it too...dont push it, promote it! if you feel you must express yourself about it. In the meantime, shoot it if you got it and enjoy it as much as you can while it's still around, it's an experience.
@simozonelayer Oh, I already have one. I've shot on it before, it takes beautiful shots... when taken properly. The last time I used it, I didn't have a clue what ISO, aperture, f/stop, etc did, so the pictures ended up coming out terrible, expect for one shot that looked really nice. When I enter University I'll get a film 'video' camera, preferable a timeless Bolex Super16, which run about over $2000 for a whole kit. It would seem more appropriate then. Do you own a DSLR?
Firstly, I'm going to an indie film fest for 3 days, staying at a hotel this weekend. In order to raise the money for the hotel room, I entered a video contest and won a cash prize. Secondly, I'm an indie filmmaker. Not a big-time or good one, but an up and coming one. In order to get anywhere, I've been watching the crap out of any film I can find, but only the good ones. I'm sorry if I watch a few videos I can't see elsewhere and give input. And I'm studying the film/digital debate anyways.
I agree. However, you can get very convincing results with digital post-processing. When I want to just have fun and shoot great pictures I shoot film. When I'm in the mood for post-processing I shoot digital. The thing with digital is that you can get extremely good results via post-processing as I mentioned before and automatic features which would require more time and effort in film. It certainly helps produce good results more easily but takes all the fun out of shooting and composing.
Film rocks as an archival medium!
Notice that they both went to the digital part in the end >:D
Digital cameras are not the same as digital viewing platforms like screens.
In my mind, it's not really fair to compare the two. They both have their ups and downs!
I have been wondering A lot whethere alone with this crap ton of money i have now whether i should spend it on a film camera or just a digital camera, i have noticed the people who use film are very artsy people.
Visuals/sensations are mere illusions created by the brain, true photography/art is done within the prefrontal cortex.
I really like those polaroid cameras! I loved how you could get the photo out right after taking the picture! Too bad the paper and ink is expensive!
On the right, a film. On the left, a TV commercial.
I think film would be more natural because it is light hitting the film and exposing it directly. Digital cameras process all the light and convert it to an image. I'm not sure how it compresses all of that data, but it does typically look less dirty than film.
Yes, you can. It has been done so since the late 1980s, when digital film editing arrived and film was still the format to capture motion pictures or TV series on, and it was done so in the 1990s and 2000s and 2010s.
Digital film making has just begun to rise since the 2000s and has really risen with the RED One and Arri Alexa and other digital cameras.
The Dark Knight Returns was shot analog, but edited digitally.
film has taught me the theory behind a camera, how a camera works, restraint with shots, and how to be patient. but has been ruined by hipsters. digital has revolutionized photography, made trips to the lab obsolete, instantaneous results, auto when feeling lazy, and no money wasted on film. but has been ruined by pseudo-photographer teens using their mom's credit card to buy expensive cameras they don't know how to work. film and digital go together, hand in hand. respect for both.
I like the elegance of film to digital, And film is also sharper than digital regardless of the lens.
Using Film makes you take your time in deciding what to capture. It makes you use your imagination more as you are limited to what you can capture. Although digital can be great at time, Film just seems more interesting to me.
16mm will always be my favorite.
we're all watching it digitally
I always liked film more, the colors are deeper and although it could use some correction, it's still very great compared to digital, but that's not to say digital looks awful. It has its qualities, such as less grain and a stable shot, personally I like the shaking film scans
this was an incredibly clever film. Good job ^u^
ughh the song yall used made me want to grab a Gatorade damn 90s advertising
Most lenses for film cameras, if not all, have you able to manually adjust aperture and/or exposure while shooting. To make it look modern and have no grain, I recommend getting an adapter for a c-mount camera so it can use a Canon lens. A Bolex EBM is one of the best 16mms ever, but $8,000. Look around for a local film developing/scan business. Some are bad, some are great. Should cost around $250 for a full 400' reel. To edit directly, get a film splicer and projector. PM me for more details.
well, i mean, my sister is a photographer and she has found alot of film and instant cameras, but im refuring to the film ones, i could tell you its not gonna be easy for me to find a film camera that will take near 1080P video, the fact you have one is amazing for me, because if i could, i would leave digital and go to film. film makes me happy!
Digital just looks so much sharper and refined. Film blurs the details of the pictures. comparing digital and film pictures of people to each other, its almost as if film morphs the very shape of a persons face.
With film you need, prime lens, good film camera, good processing. You will have good results. This, NO
One Village In Color Noted. I'm very used to digital lens cameras. I recently found an old lens camera from my Fathers garage and was thinking about playing around with it to see if i can get it to take comparable pictures. I suppose you would argue that the main issue with film is that it slowly degrades if not converted to digital. A lot of 70's/60's movies are like that, they have a yellow grainy tint to them which makes them somewhat annoying to watch.
film is a lot richer, but if you're technologically savvy you can make any digital image to look LIKE film with color processing
The eyes of Texas . . . are upon this video. \m/
Awesome! Great short film I mean video I mean polaroid!
Very cleverly done! Hats off.
film!!
I couldn't take more than 30 seconds of that song
Nicely done. Digital held up better than I thought it would, but film is still king. I'm curious as to the digital camera used.
Film can still handle contrasty scenes much better than digital. Even if the dynamic rage is equal, which it still isn't with many digital cameras beside the Alexa, the falloff from the straight line portion of the curve on the toe and the shoulder looks much more natural with film. You can still see detail in areas that are 4-5 stops over. That being said, film is incredibly expensive and isn't worth it for most projects.
The only thing that I like from film is its smooth dynamic range.
Well yes you're right. For movies and tv. I should have specified I was talking about commercial photography. I'm a retoucher and all the editorials, lookbooks and campaigns I have to do, I receive digital raw files, never scanned films. But yes for motion pictures films are still widely used and yes film is beautiful.
I think everyone can agree Film is better if your looking for the Cinema image. But film lacks the clarity that digital has, and replaces it with detail, lighting (ambience). But honestly. with HDR in the modern age now. Digital + HDR seems to be the strongest of the two. Is HDR is used properly ofcourse. nearly half a decade ago we can all agree FILM had it's advtange, but.... NOW? I dont think so. I'd choose a Digital HDR over a Film HDR anyday. Or does anyone else have a different perspective?
I miss the fun of working in a darkroom, processing the films, and printing them. There was a variability with Film and film processing that is now gone, and so has the art that goes with it. As a result it makes printing as repeatable as pressing the Print button; where as in the darkroom, when printing a shot under an enlarger every picture printed could and would be different. Digital has made Photography robotic and boring.
I've recently gotten into film, i have many digital cameras and am looking for a cheap film camera that I can use to make some short films with. I don't have the slightest clue of how film cameras work and am willing to learn. Any recommendations on a cheap film camera thats easy to use?
James Vaughn Yeah, look on ebay or at a goodwill store. I scored a camtec camera that I took apart throwing away the film shutter and lens. I replace it with a piece of sprite can with a pinhole. The winding mechanism was left to accurately advance the film. I can't wait to go taking some pix with this 'homemade' pinhole camera.
The music sounds like Yogi Bear arguing with a stereotypical Jewish-American!
Bing Crosby and Mel Blanc (voice of Bugs Bunny, among dozens of other characters.) Likely from Bing's radio show, where Blanc was a member of the cast.
You can take lots of pictures in digital, you can view pictures instantly with digital, you can easily manipulate pictures with digital, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. The reason I still have a film camera is that you just can't replace the look of a film photo. I also use a digital camera, because I'm realistic and admit I like being able to take lots of pictures.
Nicely done. Very clever!
Here is a good film vs. video comparison. These two music videos were directed by the same person and shot by the same person. One was shot on a 30-40 year old 35mm camera, the other on a brand-new Canon 7D DSLR. Can you guess which is which?
Digital is 100 times better than film. I can shoot indefinitely by using digital, while with film I was too restricted to how much pictures I could take. Once I've gone digital I never looked back.
I love the film...its just classier, and the grainier look is tastier for my eyes!
Lol this was brilliant! I was laughing my socks off.
The best film has infinite data since its an analog. They could always be remastered to look better than the best Blu Ray. Digital has a clearly defined limit of pixels which cannot be avoided when zoomed in.
Nice Video :)
Bytheway i use digital aswell as film, but i can assure you that with the right film and lens you can achieve a quality that digital sensors can only imagine...
Digital will just be a new option. It will never replace film. Replacing film with a technology that barley started a decade ago is just absurd. Digital is going to peak at some point. It's fine for people to be excited for digital. It'll be a great lower cost way to shoot a project. But yet I've yet to see anyone rise through the ranks using digital. Only established directors have adopted it. Film will be the exception if anything. It'll never fully go away. It might be less used, but yet still used often enough to be forever relevant and in my opinion better looking.
I think film will be more for the major league film makers at the bare least. For the Nolan's and Spielberg's and everyone else who is pro film. No one is going to tell a film maker who's brought them BILLIONS of dollars in profit that they can't shoot in their desired format. . Digital will be a great training ground for up and comers and people getting started. Or low budget, independent projects. Not every project NEEDS to be shot on film. Which is fine. I think both can be great in there own ways. Both have pros and cons.
Film is a better format for both shooting and projection. It's a shame that film projection is being replaced with an inferior method.
@ScaryHands I was happy to see my old city posted on youtube :)
I miss you Austin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Dynamic range on 16mm! Is unbeatable.
...and here I just thought it was a cool video. Digital? Film? They both win. I have both. Whoo-hoo!
Well what do you know, I stand corrected.
I suppose the price on that thing is insane though. Same quality would run you much less in a film camera, although new film is a constant cost to take into account.
The only differences I find is film is more fun! I like the challenge of finding a good subject and actually thinking as to weather or not it's worth a frame of film, rather than running around aimlessly shooting everything a deleting all the crap. I started with digital and found film, it's all about what you enjoy about photography! But trust me I'm not throwing out my digital!
What would be a good film video camera? Like the one used in this video. Dies it take slot of film to make a video?
Brilliant short.
digital is fast and natural looking, but film has the vintage film that makes films like the blare witch project famous!
Film vs digital debate is just another, contemporary form of the universal extremism of human thinking.
Fact is most people don't know what blur reduction on their TV is...
Quality is not important for the most part, especially since today you can get a camera for 500$ which exceeds the quality of digital cameras latter installments of Star Wars used.
Having said that, nothing yet matches the resolution of just 35mm film.
Digital formats are intrinsically contemporary. Film is future-proof.