What’s the best film acquisition format — film or digital? The battle over this question has been raging for at least a decade now, and while digitally-made blockbusters like Avatar might seem to have finally put the question to rest, there are plenty of filmmakers out there who refuse to give up on film. Take Spike Jonze, for example, whose effects-heavy film Where the Wild Things Are was shot on film, then transferred to digital for the FX work and back to film again, because Jonze loves the way film looks.
A clever series of videos summarizes the debate as if it were a marriage — a rocky one undergoing counseling. If you want to learn a few things about digital vs. film, and have a few laughs while you do, check out Mr. Pixel and Mrs. Grain.
Comments (8)
Comment
- subscribe /
- give a gift /
- terms of service /
- about /
- contact us /
- write for us /
- ad info /
- subscriber services /
- press /
- privacy policy /
- rss /
© 2012 Mental Floss Inc. All Rights Reserved. Mental Floss is a registered trademark owned by Felix Dennis. mentalfloss.com is a trademark owned by Felix Dennis.
Disclaimer: All submissions made to mental_floss become the property of Mental Floss Inc and may be used without further permission by the submitter and without compensation to the submitter. If you do not agree to these terms, please do not submit anything to mental_floss.
When I went to film school from 2000-2004, there was no question. Film was better than digital and people only used digital because it was cheaper. It looked like crap, but you could finish your movie on the cheap. HD was just emerging but people still didn’t want to use it over film. Call me old school, but I still think that film always looks better than video. And probably always will. I always loved the scene from Boogey Nights when Burt Reynolds got in a rage and said something along the lines of, “Your telling me the future of movies is video and not film? Amatuers and not professionals?” Of course his definition of movies was a little different than ours. Still though, it is something to think about.
posted by Eric on 3-19-2010 at 12:41 pm
I just watched the special features on Star Trek and JJ abrams is the same way and he also likes to use a lot of old school methods in his shots to make then seem more real…it was pretty cool, and the movie is not so bad either…;-)
posted by Jennfier on 3-19-2010 at 3:00 pm
Jennifer, I agree, and loved the way he did the “shakey cam.” :)
“…continue performing admirably.”
posted by Helenann on 3-19-2010 at 3:09 pm
We work with both film and digital. The advantages to digital are so great, but it takes a great camera, lenses and a top rate DP.
We use a RED shooting at 4K and it’s pretty freaking amazing
posted by TimCthefilmguy on 3-19-2010 at 3:28 pm
Favorite city -New Orleans. I love the vibrant culture, the food and especially all the oddballs and eccentrics that call the city home.
posted by Holly on 3-19-2010 at 3:45 pm
oops-posted to wrong section!
posted by Holly on 3-19-2010 at 3:46 pm
If Avatar is the example why digital is superior then I have to say that film is the way to go. That movie is terrible.
posted by Alex on 3-19-2010 at 5:25 pm
I took a number of photography classes (way before digital) in college and learned the best thing to use was whatever would convey the message you wanted to send. Thus, sometimes you used black and white film either Panatomic X for super sharp focus or Tri X for a gritty atomsphere (also for shooting in available dark.) Other times you would shoot color, and even then you’d have to decide between negative film or positive slides.
I see digital as just another option to add to the mix, or more correctly another tool to use in deciding what best conveys the message you want to send.
recaptcha vermeer was
Vermeer was a person who use yet another tool to anotate life.
posted by Prism on 3-19-2010 at 6:53 pm