Film VS Digital | Video Essay
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 сен 2024
- The grand debate of the two film formats - Film Celluloid & Digital Photography.
Upgrade or die? - Do filmmakers have to abandon film celluloid in order for Hollywood to move forward as an industry?
Lucas and Sony created an alternative for young filmmakers to get their pictures made.
That shouldn't be understated.
Plus, the Hateful 8 sucked... in 70mm and any other mm.
@Tomos Snow Practicality isn't laziness. Emmanuel Lubezki is a monster of a cinematographer and some of his most beautiful shots are made on digital.
Nick Cage I respectfully disagree.
"Lucas and Sony created an alternative for young filmmakers to get their pictures made." yeah what happened to that, now young film makers have problems getting their films into theaters as they tend to prefer 'safe' films marketing wise.. And dont pretend young filmmakers couldn't get their films in before.. anyone with actually good talent were able to get their films made. what the change did actually change was lower the cost to hollywood who fund the films.. not the film makers and it certainly has not lowered the cost of a ticket (a clam that was once promised)
Lucas sucks. He sucks at directing films.
Film is way better in the cinematic department, but is a pain in the ass if you aren't shooting a high budget movie.
It's a lot more trouble, yes. But the rewards are greater. Considering the fact that your movie will exist forever (or at least for your lifetime) it's way more satisfying to look at something you've shot on film and know, "I did that." It's like a woman after she gives birth. The reward of the child makes the pain worth it.
Hardly so. I have perfect digital videotapes and that are older than some of my faded to pink, red, even clear film prints along with the many reels of shrunken acetate film. And look at the frightening statistics on the number of 'lost' features due to factors unique to film, such as flammability chemical change and lack of affordable storage space.
I know from personal experience, having a shed full of the stuff that nobody wants to own or watch because most of it is now available on much better quality scratch and dust free digital formats. Having children I guarantee is much more rewarding. 👶👌 🎦👎
Joseph Adam
Unless a fire happens.
"Better" is subjective. I love the old film look, but I like digital too for it's clean feel, and also for convenience. What you meant to say is "I prefer film", becasue that's all it is - a preference.
But it can be done, as was seen with the filming of el mariachi.
My grandparents generation saw silent film turn into sound.
My parents generation saw black and white turn into colour.
My generation is watching film turn into digital.
All this is, is cinema evolving and changing. It's not a bad thing.
Its not a great thing ether though.. 70mm film has more 'resolution' than 8k digital.. and many cinemas project at 2K and fewer at 4k... and film has a higher dynamic range than digital.
Cinema is evolving to be cheaper for production company's and film studios to make films.. its not making it better for the consumer, the evolution was never meant to benefit us.. its just 'good enough'.. not great
@@DanafoxyVixen real film is more vibrant and "genuine" looking fo sho
@@DanafoxyVixen Although film has a better image than digital, its not affordable for all people. Many young filmmakers wouldn't be able to spend huge amount of money just to shoot on film. Digital has given access to filmmaking to more number of people & at a cheaper price, weather you agree or not!
Well said.
Well digital didn't replace film because of "quality".
All of my favorite movies have just so happened to be film. It looks so much better than digital. Digital is too clean.
agreed
Even film stock doesnt look as aesthetic as it did in the 40s-60s.
Yep. Its just a no brainer for me
I am a photography enthusiast and I love movies too. The human sensory system has evolved over millions of years to interface with the natural world, its an analog system not a digital one. There is a psycho visual component to the brain which forms our conscious reality, its why film seems to look more real because it actually uses natural principles to create imagery. Digital systems do not exist in nature, digital images are just the result of mathematical computation, they are synthetic just a pattern of 1's and 0's manipulated to form a representation of reality using extremely complex mathematical algorithms. Its fake, nothing more than a computer drawing, its not really photography in the strict sense of the word. A lot of digital imagery looks sterile and clinical especially when using high resolution sensors, it just doesn't look right, its the nature of the beast. The Revenant is a good example, I did not like the look of it at all, my eyes don't see the world that way.
Why cant we keep both film and digital. Can we just appreciate old school and new school.
"Why not both?"
Nolan still shoots on film..
Facts
@@gokularora965 ok so?
I'm gonna shoot with film.
The Film VS Digital debate is a moot point when every film is graded to hell and back in post.
Today, film looks like digital and digital looks like film and only the most trained eye can spot the difference. Shoting on film today will mean that the footage will be digitalized, color corrected, stabilized, color graded and run through numerous filters and effects before it's finished. By then you could have saved yourself the money and shot on digital instead.
1.try to edit a hand drawn water color portrait on photoshop cc
2.draw a portrait using water color brush preset on photoshop cc.
you'll still be able to tell the difference.
True. Most films these days are colour graded beyond recognition it destroys the whole feel of the picture.
i wish they still make movies same in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA.no digital camera can replicate that
bullshit you can't tell the difference.
@@mark4386 depends on the film, but if they said nothing you would not know.
I want to shoot on film SOOOOOOO badly!
I encourage you to. it's NOT hard, and it is NOT as expensive as people try to make it out to be. IF you are wanting to make a movie that you want to MARKET to audiences -- from the big screen to the small, I recommend you shoot on FILM. I got a ton of cameras and other gear that I will rent to producers at VERY CHEAP prices. However if I really like your story I would just loan these cameras to you (saving on rental costs) and possibly going in with you on other production costs such as film stock -- etc. I am looking for other upstart producers who want to try it out on film.
Mark King. I have been working on a script that needs 80percent low light and rest day light. It's biographical similar to the one on John Patterson who shot two man-eating lions in Tsavo in 1898. Are you accessible by email?
Pushpa Anamcara
kin0pic.studio1@gmail.com
Mark King thanks. will touch base with you soon.
Pushpa Anamcara You are welcome! Look forward to hearing from you! :-)
With the amount of bias the title should really be "Film is better than Digital"
It is.
Look at "2001, a Space Odyssey", or "Wizard of Oz". or "Lawrence of Arabia", et al, All shot on film, some Panavision, most technicolor...there is no organic comparison to digital.
@@Pantano63 what do you know about the reasons that make it better though?
Just asking I'm curious
that’s a fact tho, not an opinion
It is.
Digital sensors are getting incredibly better and better. Digital has come a long way.
took film 100 years, what digital achieved in 30-35 years
@@1sonyzz What would that be?
i love the fim image more than the digital image - The celluloid image is always better - However I disagree with Toby in one area in the video when he says that one of the reasons for the poor critical receivement of the Star Wars prequels was because they were shot in digital. They were not criticised for the reason that George had switched to digital - The reason they were panned by fans and critics was because of story, characterisation and ideas which are important factors of movie making as well as the format of what its being shot on.
is it actually true that the color and shadows captured by film cannot be matched by digital? you used clips from Godfather and Revenant to make this point. I don't think that's fair, both films probably look that way because the filmmakers wanted them to. the problem with digital is not with quality of image. it seems more of a problem as to how filmmakers use it. sometimes works well. sometimes it looks very generic. i don't think the film vs digital argument has much of a place here.
I looked at The Hateful Eight and The Revenant and both had great images. a different feel to it, but it doesn't feel like their inherent property. it's more of a choice by the DOP and and the director.
Film has as much extreme dynamic range as it captures all the light given in an exposure. Digital (unless HDR) captures better highlights but failed to get detail in darker areas if the shot is very contrasted. Film however can capture most if not all the depth in shadows and lights. But the drawback of film is that if exposed too long then it will wash out the highlights
+Gerson Rosas it's exactly the opposite. Digital (Arri) is better in dark circumstances. That's why The Revenent was shot digital on regular Arri and partially Arri 65. They wanted to use natural light only and film just couldn't deliver. But digital could. For similar reasons, Martin Scorsese used digital for the night scenes in 'Silence', the daytime scenes were shot on film as to him it had a better highlight roll-off. I have seen digital improved dramatically since Arri Alexa came along (Red and Sony have much improved as well). I like it for it's razorsharp, steady images and grainfree imaging. Film on the other hand - when you've seen a lot of digital and then go back to film you cannot help but notice the many flaws it has. Grain, flickering, pumping, breathing, fading, shrinking, warping, spots, blobs, poor contrast, colors washed out - many 35mm and even 65mm films look downright terrible. When film is done right it looks absolutely beautiful, but sadly that only really happens when all the planets line up - i.e. not too often. It's still better at the 'organic' look and digital still sometimes has a 'hard' look in some circumstances, but not for long I guess. Only original IMAX at 15perf70 cannot yet be beaten by digital. For the rest, I take something shot on Arri Alexa anyday over 35mm film. The new Red Helium seems like a real winner too. 8K resolution and fantastic black level response.
@@BlaBla-jj6sh You nailed it, but Digital looks pretty meh if color grading is done right. Film at least still has that organic feel to it. Digital is a safer choice it won't offend many people but often you are left with really average looking films (Marvel). The film works simply great when there is enough light. La La Land is a great example of a colorful movie looking fantastic on film. I would say I still prefer a film with a thin layer of grain over digital, it has more "personality" for me. With that being said, there are plenty of films which look great on digital. As you said, Imax is unbeatable, natural feel of a film a crystal clear image of digital.
@@gersonrosas1732 Thats literally not true. Any modern digital camera has much higher dynamic range than film.
@@BlaBla-jj6sh "When film is done right it looks absolutely beautiful, but sadly that only really happens when all the planets line up - i.e. not too often." It's the same for digital. Digital looks generic, dull, and RUclips-like when done wrong, which is most of the time. ,
Thumbs up for a Part 2 on request :)
come just do it mate :)
Like how long did this take? Even a second part! That would be so kool!
You can't match the quality of Imax, even when displayed on digital.
But you can match the exact look of film by shooting digital, when the film is inevitably displayed on digital anyways. Not many filmmakers that shoot on digital care about making their movie look like it could've been shot on film in some scenes, but some of the cinematographers that are great at it have proven they can do much more with digital technology after they match the look of film with ease (but again, only when the film is displayed on digital).
Film makers complained when sound came along. Then it was colour. Then it was widescreen audiences want 4:3 they argued. Now digital is here and it will become new format I'm sure.
The difference is that sound and color are good developments. While digital is cheaper, it shouldn't be used by good directors with decent budgets due to the fact it it unarguably better. The picture looks better and feels better. Digital should only be used if you are a struggling film maker who can't afford film.
Sound and colour weren't formats, they were different new tools that added something to the medium. Digital adds nothing important, as in, it's not as revolutionary as sound and colour once were.
Sound and color add realism digital adds nothing.
That argument does not hold up sorry
Bad arguments. Sound and color are not comparable to digital imagery. Sound and color are ADDITIONS to film.
The argument that the prequels would have looked "more realistic" if shot in film is misplaced, the digital visuals that stood out to people were all those cartoon cgi characters not the medium itself. But on that topic, The Revenant was going to be shot on film but it HAD to be shot in digital as they only wanted to use natural light and only digital cameras have low light capabilities for it. The irony of your ending is that you layered a DIGITAL effect on top of several clips that were shot on film to replicate film grain and scratches.
It's just like saying "This game would've been better if it wasn't cell shaded" If you are so picky that you are willing to stomp on a product because of the visual style or media the creators chose, maybe you should stop consuming visual media in general and go back to audio.
Watching movies on my TV, I honestly can't tell the difference between movies shot on 35 mm, 70 mm, and digital (although 16 mm and 8 mm are glaringly obvious). Maybe it matters more if you go to the cinema. Personally, I appreciate digital recording for making film making more accessible to the low-budget artists who have made great work.
You think someone is projecting the film on the TV from a cinematographer inside the monitor?
@@OlafLesniak No, but there is a difference in the feel. 65mm should have a little bit less grain than 35mm, for instance.
Anyone hear comfortably numb?
Can't miss that guitar solo.
forest20 it's a cover version.
forest20 AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHIIIIIIIIII HAAVVVEEE BECUUUUM CUMFTERBLYYYY NUMMMMMMM
Oh yes. As soon as that chorus and solo began i was fangirling so hard i could barely breathe.
Me trying to focus on Sam Jackson and Tarantino.
My Brain: Hey that's Comfortably Numb
Nope nope nope. Lucas' prequel trilogy was not panned because it was shot using digital technology. It was panned for too much CGI and for all round being bad. Lucas' biggest contribution to film that time around WAS that technology. Just like what ILM did for special effects coming out of the original trilogy.
Film has almost no technical benefit now that I can think of. Dynamic range is just not a thing anymore. It however, will never be irrelevant either - the reason is history. The film has been around so long, that it's distinct look and feel is an important part of selling it's own authenticity in a medium that has established it as the standard going back generations. It will continue to be used for the same reason we still have lens flairs - it 'looks correct.' It's also the same as shooting in anything other than 24 frames per second - there is no reason why you couldn't tell a great story with 48, but my brain screams 'home video' when it looks even slighty off to me.
Over time, digital technology will establish it's own versions of authenticity - we haven't even had it for a generation yet. Things that look bland to us now will have cultural value in 20 years - and the cool thing is that we aren't necessarily as bound to the same limitations as film to define them. We don't have to be limited to films highlights/shadows/colours in doing so - and sure, right now at means that a lot of tripe is copy/pasta orange on teal.
But CGI looks better in a movie shot on film. Look at The Lord of the Rings trilogy.
Panned for All of the above.
Brendan Tonkin part of how cheap looking Episodes II and III was their digital cinematography.
Disagree, Lord of The Rings which was shot on film will look far superior to anythin that has been shot on digital in the last 10 years, 20+ years from now. Film will definitely look better even 20 years from now.
@@nairb2173 You just don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. The CGI looks good in Lord of the Rings because it's good CGI.
I feel like film format obsessives are the same people that in other digital camera forums are the ones saying "the camera doesn't matter, it's the person behind the camera and the story being told" yet here they make a very fine definition between what is acceptable as cinema.
Conversely, I often find film obsessive cameramen who haven't shot film reluctant to learn the craft of using a light meter.... funny that
so much this
who cares what kind of brushes picasso used.
Painters that have seen half of his body of work in person, hobbyists that spend more time shopping for paintbrushes than they do using them, and absolutely no one else.
that`s retarded, by the same comparison there are a lot of INCREDIBLE ms painters that wouldn`t be so famous if they painted with brush.
The comparison is wrong
It's what oils he uses.
The brush is more comparable to the Camera, lens, and mic, whereas the oil is what captures the image. And yes, we should care as they create different experiences.
Digital, when used improperly which is far too often (granted it is less than two decades old so there are very few who know how to use digital. The only Directors I can say truly understands how to use digital are Guillermo Del Toro and Alejandro Iñarritu), cannot capture darkness.
Film is more expensive and it creates a dirtier image but the experience is heightened because of it (ex. Saving Private Ryan). Digital is far too clean, however, films like "Her," "Revanent," and "Shape of Water" have greatly benefitted from Digital.
I cannot say which is better than the other but I can say that, yes, it is absolutely important to look at the tools used.
i do
Ignorant comment of someone who knows nothing how important the resolution of any media is, film is still better than most digital film when it comes to dynamic range (no blown out highlights), some film for photography like slide film and fine grain negative film has got more resolution than digital sensors, also the lens is always important for sharpness. Also a Zeiss T* lens is more colour matched and better in colour accuracy than any other lens maker.
Similar to still photography. 35mm film is better than digital to me. Each exposure is more important. Each shot costs money. So, I'm more careful and cognizant.
Aside from the financial and technical difference, film captures a texture and subtlety that isn't present in the digital format.
All things being equal (story & design are key), I prefer film in still photography and motion pictures.
I hope that Kodak keeps making great products.
Don't you just love it how those in favor of digital (such as other directors and engineers) were given a voice in this video-- besides George Lucas, that is. What a bunch of bullshit this all was. Digital surpassed 35mm many years ago, and the notion that there are substantive aspects of film that digital cannot reproduce is so insanely wrong and just plain stupid, that I call into question how knowledgeable these directors really are. Perhaps (or perhaps not) digital sensors cannot yet rival 70mm film, but it's just a matter of time before they surpass it.
And what about how the most cited example of digital cinema in this video was the 18-yr-old Star Wars prequels, and the state of digital film making from almost two decades ago, and which were little more than animations with some live action footage composited in. This brings up another good point--that there are actually two arguments here that nobody in the video cared to delineate. One is the medium used for capturing the original image and the other is CG animation. These are two different things. You can do all in-camera effects for a movie shot all digitally, and you can do all CG effects for a movie shot on 35mm film and then scanned. One thing has nothing to do with the other.
And as to Scorcese's dumb, unfounded remarks about how when things are fast and cheap, that that only benefits the business people. Funny I think when things are fast and cheap, it democratizes the form and benefits everyone. And to the second part of his infantile and confused point about how when things that are fast and cheap, they are somehow ephemeral. Well, this is such a ridiculous leap of logic, I don't know what to say. Goes to show you how ridiculous some of these respected people really are, and don't even get me started on Tarantino's views which make him sound like some old man talking about how they "don't make em like they used to." You're right, asshole--they make em better!
Long story short: they ARE just tools. And if the movies aren't what they used to be, blaming the technology for that just shows that you have failed to identify the problem. A movie is only as good as those responsible for making it. Some of the most respected films of all time look like shit, visually: Old black and white movies with the 4:3 aspect ratio--hardly Lawrence of Arabia. Yet, according to these idiots, it's digital technology that is somehow, mysteriously, responsible for a lack of artistry. Morons.
this why I came here for
Thank you
A youtube idiot hipster Scorcese and Tarantino idiots lmao
I like film and its look but I agree with you. Film is a diva to work with. The cost and trouble extend beyond the price of film stock and processing. It also requires heavy cameras that are expensive, sometimes loud (require blimping and/or barneying), big camera support, heavier and brighter lights (since film needs light), light must be tungsten or daylight; not much room for mixed light, cameras that are older and in disrepair, a workflow of tools that arent easily compatible with modern times (try replacing an old film camera battery), needing a light meter, lack of accurate monitoring, uncertainty of shots until you see your returned footage, list goes on and on. Film is like the beautiful girl who you desire but she is high maintenance and brings you nothing but misery just for the pretty look.
I love film, but video/digital made film making open to everyone. You didn’t need very expensive film and equipment anymore to make a great movie. NLE’s like FCPX/Premiere/Avid made editing a breeze compared to using the old Steinbeck’s or Moviola’s. Digital video/cinema democratized movie making like DTP did for publishing. Also, don’t forget it’s also much more green than all the chemicals and waste used in old celluloid film making.
This can be true but my concern is that people are upgrading their digital cameras so fast to get the latest and greatest that many solid cameras will end up in a landfill somewhere or in the ocean.
Another disadvantage to digital is brought up: "It felt like, we are not in a hard drive...we are in a movie." Hard drives can crash, fry, corrupt, and when that happens, there goes your all your hard work. I haven't had that happen yet, however, over the years, I have lost individual master files of my work to corruption and I have no idea how it happened. I do try to back up as much as I can, but back ups can crash, fry, or corrupt.
Joseph Scarbrough yeah and film can easily be destroyed, for either one it's very easy to destroy the footage
Don't forget, the cameras Lucas used on the Prequels was high tech back then, but compared to our modern cameras the sensors were ridiculously small. Digital was still rather young while film had the time to advance and mature, so back in 2002 there was a quality difference. In terms of evolvement, one should compare it to something from the 30s or 20s when everything was black and white. On the other hand, what prevented the Prequels from looking like your granny's point and shoot were the lenses Lucas had. They are far superior to the lenses from the 30s. I think, you just can't compare early day's digital footage with celluloid (colour) film per se without considering the size of the medium, the lenses, lighting, DP, grading and scanning.
I have not seen "Hateful 8" yet (I'll probably watch it tonight on Netflix), but I'd LOVE to rent a theatre and run the 70mm version!!!
Go to The New Beverly - Owned by Quentin Tarantino himself on Beverly Blvd Hollywood - He screens the Hateful Eight Roadshow version their on Fridays as he has a projector fitted in his theatre
I don't have a problem with movies that are shot on digital but I prefer the much grainier feel of a film camera. I plan on becoming a filmmaker myself and I will shoot my movies on film.
As an Emmy award video editor and have been working in video since braodcast video tape was invented, I can honestly say that each have thier own place, filmHas its charm and is "warmer" than video (there are reasons for this) whereas video has its own values. Its a shame that huge 70 foot screens are gone as well. A good example of this is Radio City Music Hall. It was one of the best movie theaters of its day. Where the image would engulf you in the action. Now you have glorified living rooms to watch a digital projection. That's sad as kids in thier 30s no have never experienced what real movies were all about.
Like I said, I can appreciate BOTH mediums and I hope film NEVER goes away!
Wow! What super salesmen we have here. They certainly could sell ice to North Pole inhabitants. The fact is however that there is absolutely nothing (aside from pleasing Kodak) that film can achieve that digital video cannot do better. And, in spite of what might be inferred, that includes both wide shots and close-up. This 'bring back celluloid' crowd don't even know what they are selling. 'Celluloid' has not been used for movie-making since 1951.
Love the Comfortably Numb instrumental in the background... As a filmmaker, and Comfortably Numb is my favorite song, I think this was a great video and you should keep up the good work dude!
Oh and always include Pink Floyd
Appreciate it man :)
Is it still your favorite song Christian
its pretty naive to think digital wont overtake film in every way going forward. film stopped innovating a long time ago, whereas digital is constantly improving and evolving. eventually you wont be able to tell the difference if the filmmaker doesnt want you to
There is no limit for digital to increase in quality over time. Now there are tools so good one can choose what kind of film stock to overlay on digital footage. But this requires a good eye. Digital film making is so flexible that in the wrong hands the shots get over processed and look like shit.
Give enough resolution, dynamic range, fine 4:4:4 color and enough processing power - and digital will overcome celuloid.
It's already happening now, by the end of 2016. Vittorio Storaro convinced woody Allen to shoot his last movie on digital.
It's the future, Lucas and James Cameron have been telling it for years.
Film is still able to handle daylight better, while digital does better in low light, and some movies use and take advantage of both. So it's not necessarily one or the other.
Film actually does better in low light because it has significantly more dynamic range than digital. The low light performance also also depends on lens and sensors.
Bach Nguyen I can agree with that too. With the exception of maybe one rare occasion, I never seem to get good digital footage in low light without it turning out very distorted.
Bach Nguyen
But film is limited by low ISO compared to digital. The fastest film available is 500 speed, and even assuming you could push it two stops, 2000 iso is going to look grainier with more contrast compared to digital.
each one is a tool and Mediums Matter, we must defend film because to lose 35mm film would be tragic.
I can tell when a film is digital by low light shots. They have more motion blur and begin to look more like video.
You know a format is dying when its flaws are getting redefined as its features. I've never had to walk out of a digital cinema because of bad projection. I've done it several times with film.
A totally one sided argument, which completely underrepresented the other side (digital). A fail in the essay format.
yup. Exactly what I was thinking lol
True hahaha he probably got a D
I agree
you can scan at 8k films from 1920's (80 years) , you shoot a movie in 2018 and in 2020 (2 years) you can't convert it to 10k , should i say more about this??
No you shouldn't say more. Your movie from 1920 is not going to have 8K worth of resolution in it even if you scan it at that level. Meanwhile, any movie - digital or film - can be upconverted to 8K, 10K, 12K, 16K for all I care. It won't make them look better, but the upconversion is simple and straightforward thing.
Yeah but scanning film at more than 8k is a waste as most 35mm film is somewhere betweem 4k and 8k interms of rough resolution, where as dogital is at 16k with 12bit colour 15 plus stops of dr, and log colour for grading to look like any film stock you want.
I think one of the advantages of digital is for new creators, I mean if you cast samuel l jackson, leonardo di caprio, uma thurman or jamie foxx you can expect great performances with few reshots, but if its an indie movie or something like that with digital is easier to make a product where everyone is satisfied.
I do still photography. Started with digital and then moved to film. Both are great! Both have their strengths and weaknesses, but for me my love is film. From rolling, shooting, to developing. I do it all. Makes me feel closer to my photography.
The format depends on what type of movie you're making. Some movies might be better suited to use that classic 35mm reel, others are fine with 8K+ digital. The same with every other tool an artist can use. It's like on what paper you want to print your books on or if you want a paperback or hard cover. The latter makes it feel more like a real book.
To me the problem with this whole debate is that it's forever a confrontational "versus" battle where all judgments derive from arbitrary judgments between the two DIFFERENT mediums. My point is simple; Digital and Film are two different MEDIUMS for motion picture capture both with their pros and cons, methodologies and processes. What annoys me as a film maker is the that in contemporary times I have extremely limited choice when it comes to the medium I want to work with i.e. the medium of film is out of reach practically and economically for most. In addition film schools charging exorbitant tuition fees have by and large shunned film as a medium available to their students electing to push "cheaper" digital technologies instead. This in turn has had the side effect of neglecting the teaching of very real practical disciplines required for working in the industry most of which were derived from the era of shooting on film. I'd love to try shooting on film, it would be perfect for my aesthetic and story telling sensibilities but where and how would I start? I feel like such a luddite trying persuade myself to sell all my digital gear and go analogue even although I have a strong intuition it would be the best thing to do for my work.
This the problem with the modern world everything has to be fast, cheap and convenient but along the way quality falls by the wayside.
"It felt like, we are not in a hard drive...we are in a movie" ------ Amen!
@m Khan I'm sure a piece of celluloid or plastic is 'much better' than a bunch of metal platters.
The last few seconds background of a film camera motor/shutters is so soothing to hear
If film stock stops being used then it means the death of cinema...? Maybe being a bit dramatic there mate...
That's why we have filmmakers like Christopher Nolan and Quentin Tarantino who shoot movies on film. I plan on becoming a filmmaker myself and I will shoot my movies on Film whether people like it or not
I like both of them. For film: the naturalistic look and feel. For digital: cheap and easy
This is why I have full support for Christopher Nolan, who's going on a fantastic 70mm IMAX rampage. Also good using 'Comfortably Numb.'
When you've grown up watching celluloid and then see a digitally captured movie, at first it looks somewhat offbeat. Razorsharp and steady as a rock, but also somewhat harsh and sterile. But after watching a lot of digital, you do get somewhat accustomed to that look. When you then go back to film, you now notice the many problems film can have. This is very apparent in my own filmcollection. When film is done right, it looks absolutely beautiful and this 'texture' thing is real. However, there's no need for false romantism here: most films don't look very good at all. Flicker, faded colors, wobbly/bouncing frames, specks, lens distortion and mostly: grain. I absolutely loathe grain. I know some film buffs love it, but get real: it's just a distraction. It's like the background noise on a tape. This is what I like best about digital: the damn grain is finally gone and it's good riddance. There have been significant improvements in digital capture over the last ten years and movies shot on the Arri Alexa look better than most celluloid films ever have. 70mm Ultra-Panavision on The Hateful Eight? Did nothing for me. The ultrawidescreen format didn't work at all in the cabin where most of the picture takes place and the picture quality whas not better then wat good digital camera's can do. In fact it was arguably worse, because in some bits you can already see flickering in the background! Filmmakers should have a choice and should use celluloid if they feel it is the better choice, but for me digital capture has already surpassed 35mm film. The real problem Hollywood has today is overuse of in-your-face CGI and sometimes weird color grading. But the grain, flicker and wobbly frames of yesteryear I don't miss a single bit.
Bla Bla digital did not surpassed film on every aspect. Still digital tends to blow out highlight details. To avoid this there is still the ugly issue of underexposure digital raw material and to correct it, it looks unnatural.
Bla Bla also 35mm slide film and fine grain negative film has far more resolution than any 35mm digital sensor nowadays. Fujichrome Velvia 50 does over 160 lp/mm which is nearly 88 Megapixel. On resolution chart tests, all digital sensors even the ones without anti aliasing filters will fail to show the lines clear and without artifacts, also the bayer pattern interpolation on most digital sensors degrades the colour resolution information. E.g. a image or scenery of flowers shot digital will now show every colour detail and every single colour dot of small flowers and gras details. Digital will lose here. Film will show more details and colour accuracy.
@@jamestkirk6000 with digital film sensors that capture 4K/6K/8K at 12bit colors 15stops of dynamic range and in RAW format i'd like to see a comparison to your superior film. We're not talking about consumer camera's here. Take a look at Minority report, a very good film, but with extreme blown-out highlights. I know that was a creative choice that was made, bit still your argument doesn't hold up one bit dude.
@@jamestkirk6000 I love film but lets be realistic. There is absolutely no way that Velvia 50 35mm frames were getting 88 megapixels of resolvable detail. Ask any member of the ASC and they will tell you that 35mm gets 4k (generous) and never more than 6k of resolvable detail.
Digital can look like film you just have to know what to do with the image
Or y'know, just use film.
@@Pantano63 tell that to roger dinkins
Roger Dinkins. The guy shot Skyfall on digital and it looks like it was shot on film
It's the same thing as in audio mixing and mastering on old gear. Basically people, who worked on with old tech, have experience with it will always refuse those new young tech rascals who can make finished product ten times faster and easier. When originally that usually took days and weeks of work. So some feel a bit insecure about their job positions because, well, they might get obsolete. So people usually tend to mystify the tools they work with - oh this is organic and smooth, you need to be a master in that small task with years of experience and here come some dudes with laptops and replicate that so easily.
I regret watching Hateful 8 on 70mm. I would have prefered a crisp not flickering version of the film.
Furthermore, advertising your film for being shot on 70mm actually is like in this parody of George Lucas going arround and telling everyone that his Film was shot digitally.
You would have got a flickering version of the film if you watch it on 35 mm, too, or any other movie for that matter.
Rilumai Digital Projection has no flickering
I'm talking about it being projected on film, like almost every other movie ever made. Flickering will always be there in that case, but it's really not that bothersome. We've all seen hundreds of films that flicker (unless you're like really young and never saw a movie in the theatres pre-digital projection).
Aww, you poor thing..
@@Rilumai No offense, but that's like a 2010 born kid telling his kid in the future that annoying cheap CGI is really not that bothersome, because he has seen hundreds of films with annoying CGI. If you don't care about the flickering, it doesn't make sense to care about a microscopic difference of quality.
To be fair I have watched more film movies than digital. I find film much more easy on the eyes, I dunno if this is just my weird depth perception or eyes. The hateful 8, although I didn't see it, is something I praise for the 70mm film. Really excellent stuff. I loved rogue one but I'm pretty sure it was shot digital and it all looks like a TV show look if you know what I mean. There's the smooth cinema look and the slightly less smooth TV look and for me it looks so different whilst it's in motion.
At this point, the only reason someone would use film is for nostalgia purposes. The people who these movies are made for have NO CLUE what is digital and what is film. The average everyday movie goer is not researching what the movie was shot on. If JJ Abrams shot The Force Awakens on the Ari Alexa or the Red Dragon, NOBODY in the general audience would be able to tell. NOBODY. So at this point, its 100% illogical to spend 1000s of more dollars on a format that dosnt produce any significant visual difference. These movies arent made for Film makers. They are made of for the general population who dont know shit about what format these movies are shot in.
The only upside to film it's the archival purposes.
Yes.. you are so average and general..
Just because you can't tell, doesn't mean anyone else can't either. Don't get me wrong on this, I don't hate on digital. I think digital film is great, it helped to democratize the film making process and to create images that were not able to achieve on analogue film. But: I can tell the difference. And I know many others who can too. Film and digital both have very unique looks. You just can't deny that and as long as film making is an artistic process, filmmakers (as artists) should be able to choose their format that fits to their movie. There are great films that were shot digital and it fits very well but there are also examples of digital films that would have been better if the cinematographer would have chosen film - and the other way around of course. Don't always blame nostalgia or otherwise people who actually have a profound opinion on topics like that might think you're ignorant.
Have a nice day. :)
Exactly! Why in the world would filmmakers go above and beyond for something the casual moviegoer won't notice? Why should actors be expected to say their lines perfectly in a scene, when we can just dub them in post production? Why would anyone go through the massively expensive process of practical effects when we can just use CGI, with audiences none the wiser? Why would filmmakers put in all the extra blood, sweat, and tears to try and make something they believe in, when they can aim high for the lowest common denominator?
+Banana Fish Bliss
Sometimes practical effects are more cost effective.
And its more cost effective for that actors to say there lines perfectly. Post can only alter the voice. The facial expressions and delivery is what makes the actor seem believable. Or you could CG the facial expression later and that would also be an unnecessary expense.
Its all about the money and efficiency.
In the case of film v digital. Its just not logical to spend thousands of more dollars, on a look, that cant really be noticed. And im not just talking about average movie goers. Some professionals who have been in film for 30+ years sometimes cant tell if its film or digital.
For digital sensors to come close to film they must get away from bayer pattern and have true rgb values in each photosite. They must have a global shutter. They must also translate light in a logorithmic manner instead of in a linear manner. That's just to start off.
why this beautiful video only got 669 views?!?!?!
Thank you Daniel - Share away :) haha
As a photographer, I do use both formats and they both have their plus and minuses. When I look at the photograph on film and digital side by side comparison, I could see the difference in clarity. I don't like the idea of shooting black and white in digital because the computer would recognize as color. So I would rather shoot black and white photos on film. I am glad that film is still around and I hope that it will be here for the rest of my life. Peace, Flood!
this entire argument is essentially just nostalgia vs advancement. it's practically the same as the vinyl vs digital music debate, the only reason people say they prefer the older format is because of nostalgia not because it has some unattainable quality that nothing else can replicate, because it can be replicated. pretty much everything people say they love about celluloid film is able to be replicated on digital, or will be at some point in the future.
jprgingerking vinyl records sounds better than cd facts
That's not the greatest comparison. Vinyl does indeed sound better than music on digital formats. Movies are a different story though.
Except Vinyl does sound better
It's not nostalgia, it's about quality. Today a movie at cinema looks like big tv. Not like quality of cinema.
I'm all for 70mm, but Hateful Eight was kind of a strange use of it. This gigantic frame in a tight claustrophobic log cabin? How about some glorious outdoor sunsets and horse chases?
Very educational, thank you man. Now that you mention it, the wide angle shots in "Interstellar" and "Hateful Eight" as well as the depth of the colours are totally distinct from other movies so I can see the distinction somewhat.
I feel the same way about digital still photography. I love film. I appreciate the convenience of digital but the experience of loading the film, preparing your shot, and experiencing the reveal when in the darkroom. It was an event as you only had 24 or 36 exposures to play with. Hence, you had to be meticulous.
Today you don’t have think about the shot, people buy an SD card, and “spray and pray.” I love this video!
To me whilst there is both PROS & CONS with both format - STORY is the most important to all...
Okay
I'm a celluloid dinosaur. I started off in the early 90's shooting 35mm on Arri BLIV's, mostly on Kodak 5248 and 5245. I love film as much as the next film-maker but I can't help feeling there's a lot of romantic revisionism going on here. It's great that Tarantino can shoot his rare masterpieces on 65mm for limited theatrical release, but it doesn't follow that film is still the better medium for the rest of us to shoot in.
Many of the best cinematographers would choose to shoot digital now as a creative choice rather than a budgetary one. Roger Deakins reached this conclusion a couple of years ago, prefering to shoot with an Alexa over film when given the choice of both. I think there are two reasons for this. The digital camera technology is leaping ahead and, at the same time, film emulsion technology has stagnated. When I was a student at film school a quarter of a century ago, I spent one summer working at Technicolor near Heathrow. There was a huge investment back then in processing and development with lots of R&D in new and better film stocks. With Kodak's financial collapse over the last decade that is no longer true. It's also more difficult to find consistency in the labs available to process your rushes; I've heard several DOPs mention this as a factor in their decision to commit to digital. The dynamic range of modern Alexas, Reds and Varicams are a match for film. Arri's colour science is, in the opinion of many, more than a match already for anythng Kodak can provide. That gap is only going to widen as digital companies invest heavily in better and better technology. The Alexa isn't even true 4K yet, it's an up-rezzed 3.2k so the next generation sensors are going to be even more exciting. I could go on - the Varicam's astonishing performance in low light, etc, etc.
I still remember my first job as a runner on a commercial set and being allowed to look through the film camera as it turned over and the shutter flickered. It was my eureka moment where I decided I wanted to be a cinematographer. I've been in love with film ever since, but in my opinion, the only reason still to prefer the old medium over well-shot digital is for nostaligia.
You brought up a good point about consistency. Many on here don't realize that if you shoot a film on celluloid, you need to make sure the film is from the same batch if you want it to match up well. Film shifts occur between batches and they arent totally consistent. Shooting a color chart helps the grader to offset differences if they exist but not everyone shoots a color chart every roll.
“Film pioneer, Quentin Tarantino...” - what? How is he a film pioneer? Film already existed for almost 100 years before he started filming.
Ep 1 was shot on film. It was ep II (Sony F900) and ep III (Sony F950) that were shot digitally.
I have a question. If digital looks more crispier and clearer to the eye, wouldn't that be better? I mean I know that film looks more original and organic, but wouldn't digital look REAL real and not movie-ish? Great video by the way.
Basically he's saying that he likes the imprecision and limited resolution of film. He just doesn't want to admit that it looks worse because in his mind, he associates that level of low resolution and impression with what a movie should look like. Just like with certain genres of music like Jazz for instance. Most Jazz has been historically produced with analogue equipment. So, to preserve that same low resolution sound you must use analogue equipment to mix and master it. Really, that's all their is to it. The reason why it's hard to re-create that kind of low quality with digital because it's a much more precise technology and would be like asking the best player in a sports league to play like the worst. He/She might try but it won't come out the same.
That's a very fair observation - For me I was just concerned about the amount of people that state Film is a obsolete format of film photography - You could say it was romanic ignorance - thats one word for it - for me its not about what looks better, its the feel - just wanted to open opens eyes for the modern usage of celluloid film :)
I wouldn't even say that a digital image necessarily is clearer. A good 35mm print is usually very clear too, and I personally was blown away by the quality of the image in "The Hateful Eight" on 70mm.
But of course, mostly, it's about the feeling, you're right about that. When I go to the movies, an analogue film print gives me the idea that watching a movie in a theatre is something special, which is why I won't bother with the fact that a digital copy might be a bit clearer when I watch Hitchcock's "Rebecca" this night on 35mm. Digital cinema has its advantages, there's no doubt about it, but to me a movie only reaches its full beauty on a 8/16/35/70mm print.
The reason why people accuse digital film-making looking unrealistic is because the image on digital cameras looks so sharp and crisp that it actually is sharper than the human eye can detect, and so things end up looking unrealistic.
Depends on the aesthetic you're trying to achieve.
Why not use 70mm film for special or important scenes & use 8k or 4k digital for casual scenes.
I disagree too. I think there's no reason, aside nostalgia and ideological purism, to shot digitally these days. 'Cause the only thing that film has to offer is that "cinematic look", and if you really want, you can replicate this on digital, in a identical way, which plugins and so on, in the post-production process.
But one is the replica and the other one is the real one.
@@Destiny-787 define 'real'
ill reemphasize what you say there are more and more aps and video editing programs that recreate that look and its very good. I also want to add for a novice film maker digital cameras are great. Sure it isn't film. But go out and rent a Panavision and come back and we can discuss how much you spent. Then tell me how much cheaper it is. btw. They already made one major motion picture using an iPhone.
@@desertdispatch but seeing all the discussion, isn't digital superior objectively?
I'm just saying it can be a good choice and cost effective choice for armature film makers. that do give great results.
I love film however nowadays you can recreate the exact film look with digital. with 12 bit raw footage you have a lot more data then with film and can pretty much color, mess with shadows, highlights, saturation, contrast as much as you want
Some Pink Floyd in the background, nice.
I like a nice compromise in-between both. Like the old DV tape recorders. Lucas was 100% right about the future of digital. I like filmmaking for fun and artistic freedom. I love both film and digital but I'm looking to get into something that's shot on film with digital technology. I know of the old hd vhs and DV recorders but I'm still learning. Any suggestions?
Truly powerful and inspiring. Long live Film!
I love that almost grainy feel that alot of old films have
You showing this video on youtube, not through some sort of film projector. I think the argument is moot.
Film Pioneer 'Tommy Wiseau' shot his masterpiece 'The Room' on digital and film simultaneously. Tommy Wiseau was somehow ahead of his time, he was the first real hybrid filmmaker.
The Room's legacy in Hollywood only grows as this debate continues thanks to people like you.
This is a very good video essay. I personally feel that digital cameras like the RED or ARRI cameras both have a very filmic look, with organic skin tones, and pastel like colors. I think with their dynamic range, and paired with the right glass you get a very organic look. I think things start looking digital when things like artificial sharpening come into play, and cameras with in my opinion inferior colors like Sony cameras are used. Just my two sense, you made a very solid video
Appreciate it man :)
I agree with you there. I also feel that canon's cameras have a very filmic shutter. But I don't think film should go away, though. Both have their uses and they also work well together. If film is gone, we have less choice as filmmakers.
The idea that a good film starts with using celluloid is completely absurd to me. At the end of the day, it's what you show on screen when that matters. Roger Deakins, one of greatest cinematographers of all time, shoots on digital now.
As an amateur filmmaker, I don't think I will ever shoot in digital. I have nothing against other people using it but I am too in love with the image quality of celluloid to want to use something else, despite the price.
I'm 22 btw
Around 10 years ago I spoke to a film editor who had worked with one of the greatest Film Makers of all times, won't name him otherwise people will start with their stupid talk.
I showed him videos about the present day and age digital format and how editing now happens on computers. He said that if he had this technology back then his films would have been 100 times more interesting, as editing was not just a pain but a torture back then with film. He told me how at times the story of a film was altered from the main script because of the long torturous editing process. The general public never of course found out. He gave me the inside stories which amazed me that how wastage of costly film stock was one of main cause of loss to film makers back then. A color lab assistant told me that the what film makers called weaknesses and flaws of film are now being praised as strengths of film.
LOVE 70MM
I value film and am a big supporter of it continuing to be used, but I will say that digital film has its values and as the technology continues to improve, should be embraced. Digital film is continuing to prove itself a worthy competitor to film and as a film student, I value how it has enabled people with low budgets to complete films without the worry of wasting thousands of dollars worth of film. I wouldn't even be able to imagine making films at my level without the creation of digital film
Though Im not a fan of digital, especially digital projection, this 'essay' was poorly written and argued. Thumbs down.
It started well but then just came down to emotion in the end. 'I just prefer it.' Because digital looses the "magic." Whatever that means....
Martin Scorsese ranting about digital filmmaking, then he makes films like Hugo and The Irishman that was filmed digitally. Not saying I hate film, but there will be a day that they will change up the format at some point.
P.s
When you said if the prequels of Star Wars was shot on film, people would respect it more. I highly disagree!! Plenty movies back then and now can be shot on film, but if it’s a shitty story? We won’t say “that was a really bad movie, but at least it was shot on film! Lol.” Story is everything. Oh look I watch this on RUclips. I just got jipped cuz it’s digital. This is an excellent demonstration, and subject to talk about. I agree the look on film is better, but the story is what makes it even better. Keep up the good work love this short documentary
Great job man! I agree with that pristine feeling you get shooting on film but I think that digital has with out a doubt caught up in terms of dynamic range and quality. Today, film grain can easily be applied to digital images wielding close to, if not indistinguishable results. Great narration and editing man! Keep it up.
+jacobsouzafilms I have to say I agree with you on that one ;)
Cheers man ;)
But why do you want that film grain in the first place?
Ok telll a movie that was shot on digital that looks better than movies shot on film
@@jayv8068 maybe JOKER or Parasite which were shot on Arri digital film camera's
@@jayv8068 look at blade runner 2049 vs a bridge too far. Both are great films but one looke cleaner amd sharper than the other. Film can be very hit or miss in terms of quality. Thank god most cinemas are dogital as that flickering and often uneven backlighting can be super annoying.
Shooting on film ( Especially if you're a beginner) is an uphill battle in its proccess. However, the picture is much more alive and beautiful. Defo worth it.
I love the pink Floyd touch at the end
I heard "Phantom menace" was 1080p. and Roger Deakins has the best approach to all of this. and I actually trust and embrace his opinion. hes a purist who is a realist
7:08 that's best thing I ever heard !!!
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.
Your eyes don't see in 8K or 10K.
@@jb-xc4oh How do you know?
Read up on the subject like I did and find out.@@Mario-tx4ll
I miss film :(
Film is with us now and it really says in a few newssites that celluloid is truly coming back.
What debate? This "essay" only shows one side of the argument.
The Star Wars prequel failed because it was a crap story line and had crap acting. It had nothing to do with digital vs film.
not nothing, but yes it had very very little to do with digital vs film
Yes it does
Even Video is recorded as still frames and not movement. And that when played at 30 fps gives the illusion of movement. I don't buy that illusion of movement argument at all.
even if you film on digital. you can make it look more realistic. gorge wasnt using the technology in the right way
I was thinking the same thing. I imagine if George opted to use the same aesthetics as the latest Star Wars movie, which was shot on film as opposed to George's digital prequels, I would think that his prequels would look a lot better, maybe es good as on film. But I could be wrong.
Who is Gorge?
Okay...but what makes the look of it more organic? Is it just the fact that it's what we originally used? All I got out of this video were a couple descriptions about color and texture, but I still don't know why digital feels more artificial than film. Why does Spielberg prefer it? Why does Tarantino prefer it? Why is digital less vibrant? This video raised way more questions than answers.
I guess it's like comparing going to a fancy restaurant and having microwave TV dinners. TV dinners are cheaper by comparison, but they don't always have the same quality.
I think a lot of great directors (Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino, Christopher Nolan, Paul Thomas Anderson, etc) would prefer film over digital because they see it as the best quality to view movies. _Star Wars: The Force Awakens_ was shot on film, and there are IMAX theatres that still use that format. Just because most people don't see quality, doesn't mean it's not there.
A lot of people thought black and white for movies was a dying art, but now they're being used for artistic purposes, and setting curtain/overall tones. Back in the late 90's, and early 2000's, people thought vinyl records were passing away, but now they're more popular than ever.
I'm not going to act like I'm an aficionado on the whole film vs. digital thing, but I think it all comes down to grit, and the whole viewing experience. Yeah, digital has come a long way, and has made it easier for filmmakers to shoot, but that doesn't mean the former should be gotten rid of entirely. Sometimes the old ways work just as well, and sometimes it's good to take a different approach. That's what I think anyway.
Leevi Kollanus I was talking about film, not cgi.
It depends on where you see it. If a movie is shown on 70mm film in a theatre, it'll be different from watching it on DVD or Blu-ray. Looking at a painting in an art gallery will be different from looking at that said painting online, or on a poster.
I think about some of the brilliant stuff that can be done now with shooting digitally, horror in particular has so many new opportunities and avenues that couldn’t have been explored before
Ah George Lucas. Always the business man, never the artist.
That's why a duo like Sid & Marty Krofft work so well: one is the artist (Sid), one is the businessman (Marty) and together they make a creative business work successfully for decades.
He only completely revolutionised cinema. The best filmmakers today are children of Star wars. All independent film flourishing today owes a lot to the digital cameras he pushed and perfected. Sound, special effects, music, he pushed all mediums ahead. And most of his fortune he spent on charity, education and arts.
Oh, stop. The man is a relatively good filmmaking, he's just not the great in terms of dialog or directly directing actors.
Enough with that bullshit ok.
Jesus Guys. Pedro is 100% right about this.
I wish the title made it clear that this was more of a "Why I think film is better than digital" rant. The title, as is, suggested a more balanced objective analysis. Using the Star Wars prequels as the example of why digital doesn't work is cherrypicking to the tenth degree. Also, pointing at Spectre as the example of why shooting on film equals success while ignoring Skyfall, which is undoubtably the better film and more money which was shot on digital isn't exactly telling both sides of the story, is it?
this was such a great video!
Thanks man!
This came out 5 years ago and it truly gave me the history of film vs Digital and NOTHING BEATS FILM PRINT the day that goes film goes I’m with Tarantino
Excellent Video. Digital can never replace film, its the best medium. There is far too much digitized scenes in movies that just
don't look right. Digital has taken away the magic of celluloid. Just take a look at the old Technicolor movies of years gone by.
The colours look so much better. Even animation doesn't look good in digital. Prefer the old drawings. of Disney.
"Digital can never replace film, its the best medium."
On the contrary, the best digital cinema cameras from Arri and RED can create images that are virtually indistinguishable from 35mm film; such cameras have exceeded film's resolution and dynamic range, and they shoot raw, which makes it easy to emulate film's color response in post production. There are stories of blind tests in which not even the professionals could tell the difference between Arri/RED and film.
"There is far too much digitized scenes in movies that just don't look right."
Now it appears that you're conflating CGI with digital image capture. The quality of the former does not reflect on that of the latter. In other words, the existence of bad CGI does _not_ mean that images captured with digital cinema cameras are inferior to those captured on film.
@DJK83 THE BEST RESPONSE ON THIS SUBJECT!
it depends on the movie. anything trying to feel "real" or "gritty" should be shot on film (war movies, dramas, etc). anything trying to feel crisp and clean (sci-fi, stylized dramas like drive, etc) should be digital. of course, there's always exceptions.