Whats The Difference? - digital vs. actual film

It all depends on the look you want, there is no "better". The regular uses actual film, digital uses a memory card. It's like asking which is better, digital or film cameras? Partially depends on the look you are going for, how much you paid for the camera, and how skilled you are at developing it and shooting it.

There are also different types of film that give different effects.

Norma Jean said:

Whats the difference between digital filmmaking and the REGULAR way of filmmaking? And which way is better? And which do Hollywood filmmakers use most frequently and constantly today?

Click to expand...

Well, quite simply, "regular" filmmaking involves capturing the original image on actual film -- on rolls of light-sensitive emulsion layered on film stock that run through motion picture cameras. Usually 35mm motion picture cameras, sometimes 16mm, sometimes 65mm, depending on the movie.

Digital cameras capture the image using light-sensitive chips which are translated into ones and zeros which can be recorded in various ways.

Most movies are still shot on film although virtually every movie these days from the point of original photography up until it reaches theatres, is handled digitally. Digital dailies, digital editing, sound recording, sound editing -- pretty much everything. Then if it's going to be projected digitally, it never goes back to film, or if it's going to be projected as film, they used the final digital cut as a guide for producing a final negative cut from which positive prints are struck in film.

Digital technology is improving all the time and despite the claims by the proponents of film that there is an unachievable "film look" that digital technology can never achieve, for the majority of audiences watching the majority of movies, the difference is very difficult to spot.

Digital technology also has its major proponents in directors like Roberto Rodriguez who shoots only on digital -- so anything of his that you've seen -- unless you find it noticeably different from the way other movies look (and I'm not talking about things like Sin City which were clearly designed to have a stylistically different look), then you're not really seeing much difference between film and digital.

Same thing will all of the latter Star Wars movies. All shot digitally.

Also, many movies that are shot on film will shoot scenes digitally that are going to involve heavy special effects as this facilitates those processes.

The tide is clearly shifting from film to digital at every level. There's been a sea change in the home camera market, in the home movie market -- all toward digital. The technology only gets better, more flexible, more sophisticated, with every passing year. Theatres are moving toward digital projection.

There's a lot of conservatism on the part of directors and cinematographers. They shoot in the medium that they know and are familiar with. But in time it's clear where the medium is heading and the tide will not run back toward emulsion-based movie making.

NMS

Directors can use some slightly different methods when filming to maximise the use of digital.

For example, I've seen directors use a technique where the actors 'start' the scene quite a bit earlier than the script starts on that scene. That can help give the actors a natural 'flow' into the scene .. which is particularly useful with less experienced actors.

That can be done because they aren't wasting film for that scene. It probably doesn't make any difference on a Hollywood scale shoot, but for a little indie where film is a major cost, it has freed up that technique to be used.

Digital commonly doesn't have the dynamic range that film does, so if you have very bright and very dark in the same frame you may lose detail in bright areas (or the dark) .. so if you aren't careful about framing it may make skin tones look slightly 'plastic'. However, a good cinematographer knows about all of these downsides, and knows how to cope with them.

Film also have downsides that digital doesn't, and cinematographers have learned to cope with them.

Mac

i haven't read any of the responses so maybe this was already stated but people also choose digital over film because it costs less and is much easier to work with. if one got their degree in digital filmmaking it's quite likely that they wouldn't know the best ways in working with film and the editing of film. i think most directors use digital today for this very reason.

genre and storytelling really have nothing to do with why one chooses one over the other. like an artist's decision to paint with watercolors or oil based paints.

Norma Jean said:

Ok so if I got a degree in digital filmmaking, would that be good enough for me to make all genres of film ? Are there any directors today that use digital filmmaking?

Click to expand...

There are quite a few who use digital, more and more are moving toward that and like NMS said, it's moving toward digital and not back.

As to whether or not you would be good enough, that's a skill in and of itself. Knowing which shots to take, working with actors and actresses, the script. There's more to filming than just what film type you use. A lot more.

And it's harder than it looks.

One way to find out is get a little hand held video camera and experiment. Try your hand at some low budget/no budget shorts. Then show it to non-biased (Not friends and family) people and get their reaction.

There's tons of how-to-get-started advice available online nowadays, goto YouTube.com and search on filmmaking (just as one example).

-Derek

Norma Jean said:

Whats the difference between digital filmmaking and the REGULAR way of filmmaking? And which way is better? And which do Hollywood filmmakers use most frequently and constantly today?

Click to expand...

A big roadblock for the faster acceptance of digital film-making is digital projection. Whatever a film is shot on, the overwhelming majority of theatres do not project digitally. So if you go out and shoot a digital film that hasn't seen a frame of celluloid throughout its entire production, you will still (for the most part) have to pay to transfer that film to 35mm so it can be shown at your local multiplex.

The six major studios had a print bill (getting their products onto 35mm prints for distrubtion and projection) of over a billon dollars in 2003 with an average cost of 4.2 million for a single studio film and 1.87 for an independent.

By converting theatres to digital projectors, they wouldn't have to print thousands of domestic celluloid prints as well as the countless thousands of other world-wide prints - prints which require very careful distribtion, preparation, storage and an inevitable level of care and restoration. They also wouldn't have to see the return of those prints for archiving, destruction or preservation after the film has run.

Similarly, studios wouldn't have to physically ship those prints to the theatres because they could be sent through a high-speed connection (probably satellite) and more of their films could be shown at a variety of different theatres on different nights.

It's better for security and protecting copyright because a digital print is harder to intercept, leak or copy especially when those prints would be encrypted and locked by password protection right up until the moment of showtime.

The counter-arguments are financial and aesthetic. Theatres are reluctant to fork over $80,000 for each projector when it's the studios who would be saving the most money. The studios recognise this argument but are concerned about whether or not the theatres would actually use the projectors. There are also some issues of antitrust - would a studio's projector be able to play an independent film (from a technical compatability point of view) and if not, does that mean the studios would hold a monopoly on theatre runs?

The aesthetic issue involves the idea that digital cinema is too "clean" and clinical compared to the smoky romance of a flickering projector. People like the scratches, blips and cigarette burns and feel digital projection is too perfect and can look a lot like CG.

However it goes down, it's the way of the future. Especially when you consider the near-total integration of a household's entertainment devices (phones, TV, DVD, internet, cable/satellite) and the real need for studios to win back audiences into theatres. Better quality, cheaper prices and a wider choice seem to be the biggest draws that will convince a family to leave their home, drive to a theatre and pay ten bucks apiece to see something that will be available in a different format for a cheaper price in a few month's time.

(2003 figures taken from "The Big Picture" by Edward Epstein)

Well I've shot film (35mm, 16mm, S8 and r8) and I shoot 'digital' - (SD, HDV, and HD) - so I have some firsthand experience regarding the formats.

The 'future' is definitely digital - its moving that way. Too slowly for some, too fast for others.

There is a lot of misconception about quality, costs and the ever popular 'aesthetics' of each medium. Much of the discussion sounds like a meeting of wine afficianados, trying to describe the quality of a particular vinatge. Only the truly initiated will appreciate the fine points. For the most part, the average 'joe' doesn't care.

In terms of MEDIA COSTS ALONE - It's 'cheaper' to shoot digital then film. The cost of one hour of finished film is much higher than one hour of 'captured' video - But that's a VERY small cost to a Hollywoond budget. It means everything to a small indy company.

This is not necessarily a good thing.

For small indy production companies - Digital has allowed them the freedom to roll the cameras for HOURS at a time. Sure, this allows the actors to 'get up to speed' - on a take. It also burdens the post production process with tons and tons of capturing and endless ammounts of takes for the editor to wade through. The 'film workflow' is a much more disciplined workflow then the typical indy digital workflow. Because film is more expensive to expose - a 'film'maker will often be more particular about PREproduction. Planning, storyboarding, blocking, rehearsing - all before calling "Action". This can allow for more efficient use of time on a set. If you've only got time/film for a dozen takes, you better make sure they are good.

The latest new camera and codec is the RED camera. Amazing camera, great images - still not 'quite' the latitude of film, but near enough for most people. (The new Angelina Jolie film was shot with it,) Its even 'affordable' enough for small indy companies to buy - workflow runs straight through Final Cut Pro.

Is digital 'better' then film? No - it's different. It's not flawless. Anyone who's ever watched a DVD and NOT scene a tiny moment of pixilated 'blockiness' show up??? I haven't. Same with digital projections. They have to be calibrated PERFECTLY and tend to drift in their calibration over time. (They also still project through glass optics - which have their own inherent flaws and failings.) Codecs are not lossless. Transmission is not flawless. Encriptions can and will be broken - its a given.

The digital workflow will eventually supplant the flilm workflow, but there will come a new set of problems with a new technology.

And as for storage - the cost of maintaining digital storage is MUCH higher than archiving film negatives! Drives have to be checked, maintained, data transfered to newer formats. And NOBODY knows how long data will last when properly stored - because it hasn't been around as long as film. (Over a hundred years and counting)

But none of this techical information answers the question about 'learning' digital vs film as a 'filmmaker'. My advice is to learn 'filmmaking'. Learn the discipline of shooting film - the technical stuff will sort itself out later. Any filmshcool worth its salt will teach you both. I like to teach kids to shoot Super8 film. I give them one three minute cartridge - and they shoot/edit in camera. Its amazing how much more disciplined they are when it comes to planning on using those three minutes to create a one minute 'movie'.

When it comes down to it - its all about "STORY" anyway.

That's why I love screenwriting.

clock_work9 said:

A big roadblock for the faster acceptance of digital film-making is digital projection. Whatever a film is shot on, the overwhelming majority of theatres do not project digitally. So if you go out and shoot a digital film that hasn't seen a frame of celluloid throughout its entire production, you will still (for the most part) have to pay to transfer that film to 35mm so it can be shown at your local multiplex.

The six major studios had a print bill (getting their products onto 35mm prints for distrubtion and projection) of over a billon dollars in 2003 with an average cost of 4.2 million for a single studio film and 1.87 for an independent.

By converting theatres to digital projectors, they wouldn't have to print thousands of domestic celluloid prints as well as the countless thousands of other world-wide prints - prints which require very careful distribtion, preparation, storage and an inevitable level of care and restoration. They also wouldn't have to see the return of those prints for archiving, destruction or preservation after the film has run.

Similarly, studios wouldn't have to physically ship those prints to the theatres because they could be sent through a high-speed connection (probably satellite) and more of their films could be shown at a variety of different theatres on different nights.

It's better for security and protecting copyright because a digital print is harder to intercept, leak or copy especially when those prints would be encrypted and locked by password protection right up until the moment of showtime.

The counter-arguments are financial and aesthetic. Theatres are reluctant to fork over $80,000 for each projector when it's the studios who would be saving the most money. The studios recognise this argument but are concerned about whether or not the theatres would actually use the projectors. There are also some issues of antitrust - would a studio's projector be able to play an independent film (from a technical compatability point of view) and if not, does that mean the studios would hold a monopoly on theatre runs?

The aesthetic issue involves the idea that digital cinema is too "clean" and clinical compared to the smoky romance of a flickering projector. People like the scratches, blips and cigarette burns and feel digital projection is too perfect and can look a lot like CG.

However it goes down, it's the way of the future. Especially when you consider the near-total integration of a household's entertainment devices (phones, TV, DVD, internet, cable/satellite) and the real need for studios to win back audiences into theatres. Better quality, cheaper prices and a wider choice seem to be the biggest draws that will convince a family to leave their home, drive to a theatre and pay ten bucks apiece to see something that will be available in a different format for a cheaper price in a few month's time.

(2003 figures taken from "The Big Picture" by Edward Epstein)

Click to expand...

There's also, from the exhibitor's perspective, the issue of technological turnover.

35mm technology has proven itself to be extremely durable. The life of a 35mm projection system can be twenty years, thirty years, or more.

The projected life of a digital projection system, much like everything digital, from your home computer to your high end TV system, is something on the order of three to five years.

So it isn't only that a theatre that goes digital is committing to an up-front investment on the order of eighty thousand dollars (and that's eighty grand *per screen* -- quite an investment for the average multiplex) but would be committing to spending that amount of money every three to five years to replace and upgrade those systems.

Considering that the financial benefits largely pour into the pockets of others, it's not surprising that they hesitate to make that kind of commitment.

NMS

Here is what you want in a DV camera, i.e. what sets it apart from your vacation camcorder:
24p frame rate
microphone or audio input (NOT the crap onboard mic)
widescreen 1080p (at least 1080i)
The least expensive model I've seen is the Canon HV-30 which retails for under $800. Compare that with a sync sound 16mm camera with widescreen setup, which will easily set you back three times as much. Not to mention a sync recorder and film. Anyway, this one doesn't have a onboard hard drive so you can store footage on SD cards, which isn't the best situation. There's lots of models with lots of different features, like removable lenses and 1080p resolution and onboard multitracking and on and on. So go to a pro camera store - NOT a big box store - and look around for what you need.

Norma Jean said:

Ok so if I got a degree in digital filmmaking, would that be good enough for me to make all genres of film ? Are there any directors today that use digital filmmaking?

Click to expand...

A movie is a movie is a movie. You need a great script, great on-screen personalities, and a camera. It's just that the camera is digital now.
The movies 28 Days Later and Sin City woke me up to how much you could do with DV to 35mm. Most low budget movies are shot DV now and many of them look like crap, because making DV look as good as 35mm is a lot of work and requires a lot of skill. Of course, making 35mm look like a real movie takes skill too (and a team of people to operate the camera equipment).

This thread is like everyone tells us everything you know about digital that has nothing to do with the question =) Someone who doesn't know the difference between digital and non-digital filmmaking is not going to understand most of what was said.

They may not understand this either, but it's what I think about a mysterious 'digital filmmaking program'.

I would have some reservations about a 'digital filmmaking' program.
There are a number of reasons.

-As noted above, filmmaking is filmmaking, why are they only teaching you digital? It may be the wave of the future, but at this point you'd have difficultly getting hired in many aspects of the industry without a background and understand of traditional techniques. It sounds like the program just can't afford to teach traditional techniques. And if that's the case they may not be able to even afford good digital equipment for you to learn on. See next note.

-Are they teaching HD? Also, the film cameras used to shoot HD in films are not the ones you can buy in a store. They are not the $5000-$10000 prosumer cameras. They are over $100k. If you are shooting independent films or documentaries, using lesser cameras will be fine, but if you want to work on major motion pictures, you need to learn a different class of camera. I'm not sure many film schools have these cameras.

-If they are teaching you editing is it just on Final Cut Pro? A lot of companies are going toward Final Cut Pro, but you'll have trouble getting a job in the industry without Avid experience. FCP teaches you bad habits (drag and click). Even people who professionally use FCP, use it like an Avid. You have to know how to use an Avid to work as an assistant editor, even on FCP.

-Learning only digital filmmaking teaches you bad habits. Being able to shoot as much footage as you want makes it so that you don't have to make decisions. It makes filmmakers very lazy. It makes for a protracted post production process. It teaches you that you can fix things in post and not to worry about being perfect, which you can't do when you're entirely on film. If you want to be a good Hollywood level director you will need to unlearn all of these things. There's a reason why everyone who makes a hit Youtube video isn't being snatched up to make Hollywood films.

-What is it that you want to do with the degree? If you want to make wedding videos this is probably fine. If you don't want to be a cinematographer, than this would be fine. If you just want to make independent films this'll probably be ok. It's possible you'd be able to work in TV, certainly reality TV, with a degree like this (don't work in reality TV, it's a slave trade). But for real Hollywood film productions you might need a higher level of experience. You can just gain this by working in the industry.

-If you want to work in the industry, you don't actually need to go to film school. You can just start at the bottom and work your way to the top. Most people working in the industry don't go to film school. And the ones that did, usually went to top film schools.

So it really depends on the specifics of the program and they specifics of what you want to do with it. If you'll tell us those things, we can better advise you.

What zep, WhiteKnight and Mac said. Also,

If you want a career in Hwd, and you're going to film school, do all you can to learn both film and digital. Film will still be around as one of the preferred flavors of image capture. It may not be the dominant one, but it will be around.

My Hwd work experience, TV shows only, single camera shows only:

Most hour dramas still shoot 35 mm film negative, process the negative, transfer it to digital files and do the editing and post production on digital files.

One show, Bernie Mack, shot on HD, with one of those big, expensive (and temperamental) cameras that Zep talked about. Obviously they went digital from there.

Another show, Strong Medicine, shot on Super 16 mm film, transferred the negative to digital, and so on.

As NMS pointed out, 35mm film is a mature technology, with well developed infrastructure and an army of experienced technicians. There are still images you can't quite get with digital, even HD, and the maturity of 35 mm technology means those images can be captured more easily on 35. If it ain't broke, why fix it.

My understanding is that more and more sitcoms are moving to HD. Subtly shaded images are not really required for sitcoms, so why spend money processing film stock.

I have no on set experience in the feature world. I know mainly what I've read, and what I've learned talking to people at camera rental houses and on TV set camera crews.

Most big movies still use 35 mm. Film costs in comparison with other budget items, are minimal for a big movie. I believe Lucas uses only digital for his films, though. Everyone transfers negative to digital files and edits on Avid. Nobody in Hwd, as far as I know, uses a Steenbeck like we used to in school.

For lower budget films, it's a question of using the right tool for the job in question. The newer digital cameras produce amazing footage. I wouldn't argue that they are better than Super 16, or worse, just different.

Norma Jean said:

Ok so if I got a degree in digital filmmaking, would that be good enough for me to make all genres of film ? Are there any directors today that use digital filmmaking?

Click to expand...

Far from an experienced or tech expert, myself, but my two cents --

I wonder if 'genre' (comedy? horror? romance? that sort of genre?) has much to do with it. Those are about the story told and the story-telling style, all of which probably translate between film or digital.

Strictly speaking, I'd suggest that digital gives an image quality that lends itself better to comedy and sci-fi/horror (the latter being special fx intense, and that's where digital shines -- and you need to know how fx work nowaday even for 'invisible' fx)

If you need "lush" atmospheric looks (romance or film-noire) then you probably want to use film.

If your main issue as a beginner is learning visual story-telling and the Director's art ... digital is a godsend: it's cheap and fast and takes a minimal crew, so you get more experience with more ease in more variety and without the big production ulcers.

And if you're Directing in FILM, you probably won't have the expertise anyway to use film to its full technical advantage: film cinematography is its own expert artform, and you should put that into the hands of an artist whose eye you trust. It's CHEMICALS. It's voodoo, it's organic.

If you want to learn to tell stories visually, and work with actors, then digital is pure liberation!

You are all my witnesses: these comments not once contained anything "blue" !!!

oops.

What exactly do you want to do?

Storytelling techniques are the same, whatever the medium.

If you want to be a cinematographer, for example, learning digital is not going to teach you how different film stocks work, how to load film, etc. It will teach you how to frame a shot, hopefully the emotional content of each type of shot, the 'why's.

Lighting for both is a bit different - getting closer all the time, but different film stocks react differently to color, intensity, etc.

Honestly, I like not having to wait for an answer print. but that's a TINY matter in the greater set of questions.

I can't stand movies shot on digital, personally. It makes it feel sick for some reason.
A movie shot on film is more aesthetically pleasing as it isn't as sharp and has less frames per second then digital - which is what the human eye is use to seeing in cinemas.

A comedy is best shot on digital whereas a serious film looks better on film, however the cost is one of the greatest reasons film isn't used much anymore - it's a shame because I look forward to shooting films on actual film when I can get the funding in the future.

kayg said:

I can't stand movies shot on digital, personally. It makes it feel sick for some reason.
A movie shot on film is more aesthetically pleasing as it isn't as sharp and has less frames per second then digital - which is what the human eye is use to seeing in cinemas.

A comedy is best shot on digital whereas a serious film looks better on film, however the cost is one of the greatest reasons film isn't used much anymore - it's a shame because I look forward to shooting films on actual film when I can get the funding in the future.

Click to expand...

Regarding frame rate -- any digital project destined for theatrical release is shot at 24fps. The cameras are designed to be able to do this.

Many movies shot on digital are ultimately transferred to 35mm for theatrical release, since many theatres don't have the facilities for digital projection.

Also, many movies that have special effects sequences, even if shot in 35, will have those sequences shot partially or completely in digital -- sometimes using elements shot originally in 35, sometimes composed of elements created altogether in the digital realm, and movies will often intercut between the two different kinds of footage without anyone being able to distinguish between the two.

Obviously, that requires certain kinds of compromises on the "film" side, since the contrast range and other things aren't as broad for digital as they are for original shot-on-35mm -- but movie makers have been making those kinds of compromises for a long time, since the contrast range for a televised image is enormously less than for a projected image -- and most movies are destined to spend the majority of their lives on TV and video and whatever they shoot has to be aesthetically viable in those media.

NMS

On a recent project, a director I work with used celluloid because of its robustness when shooting in terrible conditions (cold, damp etc) which surprised me a little because I'd have thought digital would be more hardy.

Also, apparently the grain of film used in the print given to the cinema can 'fool' most eyes as most cinemas as others have commented use traditional film not digital.

I don't agree with the 'shoot comedy in digital' point someone made in this thread. I think it's just personal preferences, budgetary considerations.

I do think though that for writers it's an interesting debate but not vital to creating a screenplay unless you want to produce/direct it yourself.

I'm a firm believer that you can make the tools work for you, if you have the inspiration and are creative enough.

Sure, I have my preferences for certain tools when it comes to graphic stuff (my day job is in graphics), but at the end of the day, I don't judge films on which techniques they use but on the story.

As for learning filmmaking, I think you have to look at what they teach you in terms of pre-production, choosing people to work with, working with actors, scriptwriting, storyboarding and so on. Choosing the camera is only a small part of making a film and if you want to be a director, it's important you understand the whole process.

So a course that focuses on a specific film equipment is good if you want to be a camera person, but not if you want to be a film director (or perhaps it could be a second course as a film director, if you feel you need to know more about the technical stuff).

So a course that focuses on a specific film equipment is good if you want to be a camera person, but not if you want to be a film director (or perhaps it could be a second course as a film director, if you feel you need to know more about the technical stuff).

Click to expand...

Cannot agree more. You'll learn DIRECTING and VISUAL STORYTELLING tens times more, and faster, with the freedom to experiment/make mistakes/evolve made possible by inexpensive digital, imo.

And the simple truth may be that if you were shooting FILM, you'd want to be giving the artistic "film stock" and "lighting" details to experts in those things, anyway.

Shoot and learn by doing (made possible by DIGITAL) rather than not shooting because you just cannot afford massive amounts of FILM to do it on.

Get a copy of $30 FILM SCHOOL. D.Y.I.

And everyone -- please ... pleasssssse ... as you go out into the world, please spell it "INDIE film" ... ???

"INDY" film is filmmaking in INDIANAPOLIS!