Here are our thoughts on the matter:
This is something I am quite familiar with as a producer. Filmmaking is inherently expensive regardless of the medium you shoot on, but there is something to be said for digital.
There is a significant drop in cost when the switch is made to digital, especially if you consider the costs of developing, transfer, digital intermediates, color correction/telecine, back to film costs if need be, etc. However, the argument of switching to digital is one that is quite subjective and heavily debated. There is without a doubt a nostalgia and a routine to using film, especially considering the high quality nature of emulsion which is really difficult to replicate. However, the advancement of digital equipment is such that this is becoming much less of a debate. Some Hollywood blockbusters that people flock to are shot on digital and no one is the wiser. Even a lot of the lower budget independent films that open up to the digital options find that they can produce film quality images if they have the appropriate crew.
We are frequently asked the same question; digital or film? This decision should be made based on the following criteria:
The budget, that is to say how much money is able to be allocated to the cost of using film. Even if your budget is at a fairly substantial level, you still may not be able to afford film. The reason is budget allocation. If you pour too much money into any one specific area of production, such as the cost of using film, then you automatically decrease the funds available to other areas cumulatively, which could be of severe consequence to the production. For instance, the most common error made is to remove funds from sound and post-production/promotion to afford a higher quality camera. It doesn't matter how good the footage looks if the sound is terrible and you cannot afford the cost of color correction/visual fx and especially promotion. If you cannot afford to tell people about your film, then all the money put into the camera was not of much use in the long run. If it is clear that film will skew the budget allocation noticeably and to a level of discomfort to the producer, then the question should no longer be, "film or digital?" but, "what is the best quality digital I can get for what I have available?" If you maintain the thought that money and people (who also depend on your money) are your main resources, then these should be preserved first and foremost over any equipment value.
The quality of footage vs. the crew available. Film is a traditional art form and is difficult to master but is for the most part common place. This means that there are quite a few DPs out there that are familiar with film and are quite able to produce high quality footage. If the money is there, then sticking to the tried and true method of film based filmmaking is the most appropriate choice. However, when considering digital, remember that it is still a new medium. While digital has been around for more than a decade, it has only been in the last couple of years of development where advancements have been made to replicate near film quality imagery. This means that far less people are knowledgeable on reproducing this imagery. This fact is rapidly changing as more and more filmmakers defect to digital and begin to learn the equipment available, its advantages, and how to use it. However, keep in mind that the field of qualified DPs is smaller than that in film. It's difficult to manipulate digital technology to replicate film, so choose your cinematographer very carefully, especially if you are strapped on time and need a DP who can move quick, yet produce quality footage.
Lastly, time vs. developing technology. Film has remained for the most part relatively unchanged for the last century. Film is still emulsion based, it is still run through a reel and exposed through a shutter rotating at 1/24 of a second, and is still developed and color corrected in a lab. The technology of creating and developing film with the combination of higher quality cameras and lenses has advanced the art of using film, but for the most part the technique and use remains unchanged. The digital world changes monthly. What was common place four months ago is now outdated by a revolutionary new system, which in turn is outdated just a few months down the line. For example, Final Cut Pro developed version 6 so fast that users barely had time to use version 5 before they had to pay for a costly update. Therefore, expect increased costs in production based on the cost of updating and buying software/equipment. The RED Camera is by far the best example of this. Anyone using the RED knows of the inherent flaws in the work flow and technology, but every month they continue to develop new features, while releasing fixes to their earlier bugs. However, since their new features are still bugging, while one bug is fixed, the next is already present. Expect developments in technology that will push you to change your game plan on the move, whereas in film you can expect some form of steadiness.
If anyone has any other question, please feel free to email us
info@loughrancg.com.
The Loughran Consulting Group
Kinda. I don't have as strong feelings about the superiority of one over the other. For me it is more a question of suitability. This, of course, grants that we are talking a digital sensor on the high end of the spectrum for purposes of quality comparison. Ie. Comparing a Viper to 35 or s16 is more viable than comparing a GL1 to film. Having said that, if I wanted a specific look (let's say prop-camera footage of one character spying on another) I might go for the "lower" quality image on purpose. Even at the high end of the spectrum, you're talking about two completely different resultant image styles that don't really lend themselves to a straight comparison.
), film has had its day.
