Film Versus Digital: Who Will Win?

In earlier posts I have brought up how digital technology has come so far that anyone can be a filmmaker. It's true, the digital age has allowed for more independent filmmakers to go out there and make movies. But despite this fact, there is still a question of which is better, digital or film. Each side has their benefits and drawbacks, and adding them up, it's difficult to say which is the best. And right now, both are used commonly, from commercials, to television shows, and big budget feature films. The television show, Heroes, is shot on 35mm film, but then there's Superman Returns (see image on the right), which was shot digitally. Here at USC, I've been lucky enough to have had the chance to work with film and digital technology, and I've been able to see the advantages of each. But even the film school has been making changes, and a lot of the film classes I've taken are going digital, when before they used film. It's great that the world of movies is embracing new technology, but it will not yet give up the old ways; there is a reason digital technology still strives to replicate film. Despite the benefits that digital offers in the film making process, it still doesn't replace the fact that it doesn't look as good as film does.

When shooting a movie, a lot of time is spent lighting the set, making sure everything looks right. The camera needs to be loaded with film, which requires skill and time (film needs to be loaded in darkness, often in a little tent, so one has to learn to load based on touch). And when working with film, the light needs to be measured, so that the film can pick it up so it shows up the way it is meant to be. Then there's the problem of not knowing how things have turned out until the film has been sent to the labs to process it which can take a day or two. Also, there are the mishaps that may happen, like the film getting caught somewhere in the camera and bunching up, the little problems that can cause much pain and wasted time. With digital technology, it eliminates a lot of those troubles. Loading the camera involves pressing a button, sliding in the tape, and closing the lid. There's no film to get bunched up in the camera, although there may be the occasional tape troubles, but those are few and far between. Another benefit is that all one needs to do is plug a monitor to the camera and the image presented is the actual image, the final image without any processing needed to be done. So it eliminates the wait, and allows the results to be viewed and reviewed after being shot. It also gives that instant image to work with when setting lights. There's no question whether a light it too bright or too dark, because it can be seen right away. Digital does certainly seem to have an edge in making the production process much easier and less troublesome. It's also cheaper to use than film. But cinematographer Bobby Byrne, of the show Titus, mentions how because the camera operator now looks through a little screen in the eyepiece of the camera, rather than looking through the actual lens of the camera, it makes it hard to notice things like lens flares (caused by light hitting the camera lens). "My operators can't see them on their small video monitors. Flares, therefore, have become totally my responsibility." The job of looking out for those problems now goes to whoever is watching the monitor during the shoot. So, digital technology does have some side effects.

While shooting digitally does make working on the set easier, there is still the one all important factor: what is the result? How does the digital image compare to that shot on film. This is where things become clear. Digital technology, although it has come a long way, still cannot hold up to film in picture quality. It has difficulty handling colors like red and white, and it mutes a lot of the other colors. That's not to say that it looks bad, but when compared to film, there is still a difference. Film can pick up a much wider range of colors, bright and dark, and lay it all out to be seen. This can be seen in things like clothing and fabrics, which have different colors and designs. A digital image will not provide as much of a visual display and give it justice. There's also the problem that a lot of digital cameras cannot handle certain patterns in things like clothing. There are things that it has a little more difficulty processing. Another difference between the two is depth of field, and how much control each medium has over it. Depth of field is how much of what is in focus in front of and behind a subject in the shot. It's more difficult to control in digital because a lot of the shot will be in focus, which is not always the wanted result. One other issue, which I recently discovered during a meeting with Garret Smith, an employee of Technicolor, is the storage life of each medium. Film lasts much longer, and is cheaper in the long run. Garret backs up this fact by saying that, thanks to film , today we are able to see re-releases of old movies, which are restored and look better than even the original copy. Digital, on the other hand, has to be constantly backed up and replaced, especially as the technology changes. This ends up being much more costly. Film holds up better over time.

The fact is, digital technology is not yet up to par with film, and it continues to try and replicate it. So, until it can actually achieve the same results, film still will be dominant in terms of what the movie looks like in the end. And really, that's what matters, so while using film may be tedious, it's definitely worth the time and effort because it looks great. We're transitioning from film to digital, and right now both are being used just as frequently as the other. There are some directors, like Robert Rodriguez, who swear by digital ("...digital is immediate. We can move really fast."), and then there are those like Steven Spielberg, who choose to stick with film because they feel it is better ("...a film frame is alive with movement ..."). While I enjoy using film, I will, for at least right now, be using digital technology. It's high quality, and much more affordable for a beginning filmmaker, and, as I said earlier, it's easier to use. But I definitely won't turn down the chance to make a movie on film! (See left!)