• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

Nolan States Film beats Out Digital

HMSanchez87

HMSanchez87

At the Producers Guild Of America meeting, Nolan said...

digital is "devaluing what we do as filmmakers" and added that "I don’t want to be the R and D department. I don’t have any interest in the research into electronics. What interests me is to use the best technology and that is film."

So what do you think, do you agree with him or not? Do think digital is the way to go or is film the best option. Cinematographers, Director's of Photography, and Camera men... SPEAK YOUR MIND
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
It sounds like his complaint isn't that digital as a concept is worse than film, simply that in it's current state it's not as good as film can be. He wants to make movies using the best available technology; for now, that is still film.

But that's partly because he has the access to and resources for the best that film has ever been - 65mm & IMAX. Those represent the state of the art in film, and they're better than the current state of the art in digital. I suspect his attitude is primarily in response to pressure from studios who are trying to get him to use digital for cost reasons.

If you don't have the resources for those formats then it's not really much of a discussion. There may be situations in which 35mm can outperform current digital options from a quality standpoint, but those situations are becoming more and more scarce. On the other hand, digital can often be a better option for reasons other than just image quality. If the workflow advantages of digital allow one to spend more time and/or money on other aspects of a production then I think there's a valid argument that the best technology - in terms of producing the absolute best film possible within your resources - is digital.

And it's clear that digital will surpass even the state of the art of film in terms of quality soon, likely within a decade. For someone like Nolan, who's making the films he wants to right now, what's coming in a decade or so isn't particularly important. For the rest of us digital is likely to be not only the best option, but possibly the only one - so I see it as far more important to learn to get the best out of digital now.

As far as "devaluing what we do as filmmakers" I'd have to say arguing about camera/imaging technology does that more than anything. Film & digital are just tools a filmmaker uses, and which one anyone chooses doesn't really have much to do with the value or quality of their work as a filmmaker.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
He doesn't state how film is supposedly devaluing what filmmakers do. As long as the story is good and all other elements are up to par, no one cares if it was shot on film or not, and most audiences won't be able to tell the difference. In terms of visual quality, the top digital cameras look just as good as a film camera to me.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Film is better than digital. In much more general terms, film is still what is used most in Hollywood for image capture. Alongside the Alexa, that is. The Alexa is the only digital camera worth using as it does indeed look like film. I personally find the look of Red to be too sharp, too digital.

Film looks better and has a better dynamic range than most digital cameras. On a big budget the difference in cost between film and digital is minimal. I think it's becoming a creative and logistical choice - ie, if you're shooting 3D you can't shoot film.

I think there's two sides to 'devaluing what we do as film-makers'. There's the one side where people get caught up arguing which camera is best, what has the best dynamic range, which outperforms that etc. and spends so much time on tests to find it out, rather than going out and just making a film, using the best camera available to you and making your damn film. The other side to that is you have competent professionals who are professional DPs in their own right and produce beautiful imagery losing out to jobs over the kid down the street who just bought a DSLR because he charges 1/4 of the price.

I recently worked with someone who had just bought a Scarlet and therefore that made him a DP. He wasn't a DP by any stretch of the imagination, in fact he was more a videographer who bought a Scarlet. But, with buying cheaper digital gear, people now think that means they are a DP or a Director or what have you.

This means that it devalues those of us who have worked hard to be DPs, those of us who can make beautiful images, and do it whether shooting on film, DSLR or Alexa. Those of us who know how to light a scene to make it look good and interesting, rather than to just get an exposure, those of us who can make something look amazing in camera rather than relying on post to fix it. That;s what a DP is, and it's being devalued by kids who buy DSLRs and then think they're DPs simply because they can open up to f/1.4 and get shallow DOF.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I'm a fan of Nolan and, to me, he is the greatest director of this century up to now.
But I totally disagree that digital is devaluing the filmmaking. Digital is a key to the million of people who cannot afford for a film camera and all the process envolved since the shot until the scanning. Million of people who got talent and, before the digital tech, were unable to produce good independent pieces and, with that, join a career in major spheres.

In my vision, it is simple: producers who can afford, shoot on film. Those who can't, shoot with every gear which can make the audience really want to watch it. Just want to forget the time when only few people could dream with a professional movie.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
FernandoAndre said:
But I totally disagree that digital is devaluing the filmmaking. Digital is a key to the million of people who cannot afford for a film camera and all the process envolved since the shot until the scanning. Million of people who got talent and, before the digital tech, were unable to produce good independent pieces and, with that, join a career in major spheres.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree with you there. IMO, the days when you could only shoot on film really seperated the men from the boys, so to speak. These days, anyone can make a film, from Joe down the road to your teacher at school. Back in the times of 16mm, to make a film you had to not only have some kind of talent and want, but you also had to have the dedication to learn how to expose film properly, how to process it, the whole process involved, and you had to be dedicated enough to save up enough money any way you possibly could. That breeds a much more professional, disciplined filmmaker.

The issue now is inexperienced Producers hiring firneds or kids with DSLRs rather than experienced, disciplined professionals becayse they don't understand the difference between professional DP and DSLR user calling themselves a DP, and only see the bottom line.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
jax_rox said:
IMO, the days when you could only shoot on film really seperated the men from the boys, so to speak.
Click to expand...

Men will always be separated from the boys. Because the talent can make the difference in any equipment. Is not enough have a camera. You have to know or to feel what you are doing.

The difference between today and past, in my opinion, is that the talented men without money now got very beautiful alternatives to make great movies. The non talented men can use the same camera, but do nothing more than they can do with anything. I mean, the difference only exists for talented people. That's why I can't see any devaluing in the filmmaking.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
When someone like Nolan makes a comment like that or even when Scorsese makes a comment like that, I think they need to be quick to elaborate on what it is they actually mean. Of course film looks better. We all know that because we're filmmakers and we look for that sort of thing, but the average moviegoer isn't comparing digital to film. They just want to see The Avengers and have the picture and colors be incredible.

I think maybe they mean 'devaluing' by the fact that everybody is trying to make a movie nowadays, let me rephrase that: "make a movie" when all they really want is to tape one of their friends wiping out on their skateboard and put it on YouTube. We know there is MUCH more to filmmaking, but many people don't, so filmmakers of their caliber need to not speak in such general terms. Then you have those who are not in film thinking "ah, yes! It is devaluing filmmaking," as if they know what that means.

For example:
I read an article on jobs that were becoming obsolete. One of the jobs was post production editors. I had a big laugh at that because their example was how anyone with a new computer can use the edit system that comes with the PC and just edit anything they want to. Obviously this person doesn't know that everything is post production and you "ain't" editing Prometheus on your crappy PC edit system.

I think their point is that you have to know how to shoot. You have to know how to frame a shot. You have to know how to light a set, get good audio, etc, etc. Just because you have the tools doesn't mean you can create Raging Bull and Scorsese knows that. He just has to be more clear when he says it.

-- spinner :cool:
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
jax_rox said:
The issue now is inexperienced Producers hiring firneds or kids with DSLRs rather than experienced, disciplined professionals becayse they don't understand the difference between professional DP and DSLR user calling themselves a DP, and only see the bottom line.
Click to expand...

That's exactly right.

It's one thing to be new and just learning. That's one of the things that digital IS good for, it can weed out the filmmakers (even the new ones) from just a kid with a camera. Because one of the things I know is that maybe you don't really want to run the camera. Being a DP isn't easy. I DP-ed a my first film last August and I'll be honest, until I actually do my own narrative project and can really know for myself what I am capable of, what I am is a videographer. I don't know if I'm a "DP" yet.

...I'm not a bad documentarian though..... :D


-- spinner :cool:
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Cracker Funk said:
Maybe Nolan hasn't yet seen Prometheus.
Click to expand...

Prometheus is not a good advert for digital as a production medium. Compare this film to Sir Ridley's work from 30 years ago and we are going backwards. I say this as a person who reveres this film maker. I just really hope he goes back to film for his next project, and I hope he doesn't waste any more time with 3D.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
spinner said:
Because one of the things I know is that maybe you don't really want to run the camera. Being a DP isn't easy. I DP-ed a my first film last August and I'll be honest, until I actually do my own narrative project and can really know for myself what I am capable of, what I am is a videographer. I don't know if I'm a "DP" yet.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I see so many, and in fact have worked for (as an AC) videographers masquerading as DPs. It's not enough to be able to operate a camera to be able to call yourself a DP.

I think one of the marks of a true DP is someone who can make images look good regardless of the format - whether DSLR, Prosumer, 16mm, 35mm, 65mm, Alexa, Red or BMDCC.
I don't think a DP is a DSLR zealot who defends their purchase decision, and wants to buy a BMDCC simply because it shoots '2.5k RAW ZOMG' without even knowing what a raw workflow is, how to light for raw etc. etc. or conversely will talk about how terrible it is because of its 'limiting sensor size', even though it's a larger sensor than 16mm.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Just listened to long Richard Deakins interview where he talks about this (and many other subjects). He bashes technology a bit in terms of just because you CAN do something, should you, but he is a digital fan (and thinks all future Coen brothers films will be digital) just because of low light (There's no 1600 ASA film stock) and the ability to instantly know what you have which fosters taking more chances.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The technology is evolving. Films and directors with virtually unlimited budgets can do as they wish. The rest of us have to use what's available and attainable. Is old Hollywood threatened by digital acquisition? Sure, much in the same way horse livery owners were weary of the automobile.

There is a romantic attachment to film that will take generations to subside. Theater folk looked down at movie actors for decades and some still do. People generally don't accept change well that have a passion for the previous method.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
viz said:
Prometheus is not a good advert for digital as a production medium. Compare this film to Sir Ridley's work from 30 years ago and we are going backwards. I say this as a person who reveres this film maker. I just really hope he goes back to film for his next project, and I hope he doesn't waste any more time with 3D.
Click to expand...

Meh. I guess we can boil this disagreement down to personal taste. I don't think Prometheus could've possibly looked any better. I'm no cinematographer, but I don't think you need to be one to be able to say, "I like that".
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Prometheus wasn't the best advert for Digital, that's true! It was shot on RED afaik and it's quite noisy in the cave scenes in the shadows.

That said, the ALEXA or F65 are on par with film in my opinion. With the right post production it looks similar.. And it's a lot cheaper too!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Phil_UK said:
That said, the ALEXA or F65 are on par with film in my opinion. With the right post production it looks similar.. And it's a lot cheaper too!
Click to expand...

Not sure about a lot cheaper! Somewhat cheaper, sure. But certainly not a lot. Rental of an Alexa or F65 is about double that of a 35mm camera, so you're essentially spending what you would've on stock anyway.
A lot of these digital productions go through a digital DI, and all of them go through a colour timing process, so the cost saving is really only that on stock, which when you factor in the extra price for the camera rental, it works out about the same and in some cases more expensive than if you had gone with 35mm (depending on the length of the film, shoot etc.)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top