For my Public Speaking class I recently gave two speeches on Film Vs Digital. One speech sided with film and the other with digital. This is the speech on gave supporting the digital side.
How many of you have heard of Avatar? This incredibly
beautiful movie was not made using film cameras. It was made using a digital
camera similar to ones in our phones. Digital filmmaking is quickly becoming
the fastest growing method of filmmaking. As a filmmaker, I personally shoot on
digital cameras and several directors and cinematographers are switching over
from using the traditional 35-millimeter film to digital shooting formats. This has allowed for more films to be made at
a faster, cheaper, and more efficient capacity.
Digital
cameras, which are a relatively new movie-making tool has also been gaining
serious traction among professionals in the field as well as the studios. Most
studios are now planning to switch over to an entirely digital filmmaking
workflow. According to LA Weekly,
studios are demanding the switch from 35-milimeter film to digital, and for
good reason.
Starting purely with the look and quality of digital footage,
digital has a much cleaner image when shot in the proper conditions and
lighting. One of the many arguments against digital filmmaking is that film
subjectively has a better look. This is a mostly irrelevant argument at this
point in time. Currently the “film look” can be emulated through editing the
image. In an interview with Wired.com
filmmaker Robert Rodriguez says “we could make a digital movie and have it look
exactly like a film from the era”. He did just this and showed his results to
film purist Quentin Tarantino who finally admitted he was blown away with the
results of digital. Other qualities that
make digital better than film aesthetically is the cleanness of the image. Film
deteriorates in quality over time. Digital video and images last forever. This
also means there won’t be any scratches or dusts spots on the image as it’s
being projected in digital, one of the many things our eyes have gotten used to
after watching movies projected on film for so many years.
The cost of making movies on film far exceeds the
cost of making movies on digital. According to Ken Rockwell of kenrockwell.com,
“For $600, your 1,000 feet
of film only runs about 12 minutes.” And
then he goes on to elaborate on the other processes that involve processing
film so it can be digitized and edited; he says “Thus we've spent about $2,200
for 12 minutes, or over $10,000 for an hour of film.” The costs of film as you can see is
exorbitant. We have students here at Ithaca College still deciding to shoot on
film, and they’re driving the costs of their productions upwards of 2000
dollars. Not exactly a shoestring budget for college. If the students shot on
digital, they could have made the cost of shooting their movie potentially for
free. Comparing this to the costs of certain digital formats, film is over 10
times more expensive then certain pro-sumer based storage devices and on the
pro cameras it’s still about 5 times more expensive. Also, film storage only
gets one use whereas digital you can get a potentially infinite reuse of the
storage device. According to Rich Lackey, an expert in Digital Cinema
Technology, the cheap cost of digital filmmaking has led to the advent of more
competition in the field of filmmaking. More competition means more movies,
which is good for us, the audience.
The first movie to win an Oscar for cinematography that was
shot on digital was “Slumdog Millionaire”, ever since then, more and more
movies have been made digital cameras. Roger Deakins, a cinematographer, widely
regarded as one of the best in the industry made the switch to digital in the
James Bond film “Skyfall” and he expressed how much he loved the digital
format. Other filmmakers are also making the switch. James Cameron, who most
recently directed “Avatar” claims that film has been dead to him for years because
you can’t make 3d with it. 3D although disliked by some, is known to be a great
source of profit for the industry and generally is a very positive aspect of
filmmaking when used correctly. Some
incredibly well made digital 3D movies include: Avatar, Hugo, How to Train Your
Dragon, TRON Legacy and Prometheus. Peter Jackson bought 48 RED Epic Digital
Cameras for his most recent movie “The Hobbit”, which is also being shot in
3D. These are some of the biggest names
in Hollywood now saying that digital is the most superior filmmaking medium in
terms of ease of shooting.
Shooting digital also has its advantages from other
perspectives. It gives the filmmaker the most manipulation after something has
been shot. For example, if a scene was not recorded at the correct settings,
RAW video now allows for an editor to go change the settings afterwards on the
computer. This is not a luxury that film has over digital.
In the end, the ones who stand to profit most from digital
filmmaking is us, the audience. Now movies get to push the limits more than
ever before, and we can see these great expansive and beautiful
multi-dimensional worlds created right in front of our eyes. Overall digital is
cheaper, faster and easier to manipulate than film. Soon enough film will be a
thing of the past, and digital will be the only acceptable method of making and
viewing movies. So the next time you watch a movie ask yourself, is this shot
digitally or on film? Chances are you won’t be able to tell, because by this
point digital is not just equal to film, it’s surpassed it.
