Film vs Digital - The Unresolvable Comparison 

It’s kind of miraculous that they landed on a format that is technically and emotionally so fantastic, so evocative, so early in the history of all of this

It comes down to digital being able to preserve a film (or digital equivalent) in a lossless format. This is from someone who's watched a lot of old films that were slowly disintegrating over time and now you can watch them fully restored with vibrant colours and no scratches/dust

Both mediums bring out different feelings. Let's normalise the fact that one medium isn't necessarily better than the other.

One thing that's usually glossed over in the debate is that, regardless of whether the movie was shot on digital or film, you're likely watching it digitally, either streaming or even with most cinema projectors. Even the chemical composition of film is eventually digitized at some point in the process.

One of those rare times when I am suprised by the subscriber count. Have taken a week long break from youtube and it is very refreshing to go back and watch a thoughtful, thought proving and calm video instead of the zero-attentionspan hectic garbage that litters youtube these days. My point being: well done sir! Enjoyed the video!

This isn’t a topic I was researching; the video was recommended by the algorithm, but surprisingly, I found it really interesting

I think it depends on the cinematographer using the particular medium and the situation. Some movies that use digital absolutely look it and can look cheap. But in some situations, as in Deakins and Blade Runner 2049, it looks beautiful because the cinematographer using it has really mastered it AND has access to higher-end equipment (that too is a factor). The same goes with film.

Absolutely love this style of commentary and video and your voice suits the style very well. Really nicely done.

This is the most poetic and philosophic and artistic video i have seen on RU-vid in years. As a content creator, and poet, and as a poetry teacher, i thank you. You have influenced me in my own way to think videos.

To me, it's not just about the look of film vs digital, it's mostly about the amount of focus and dedication required by the whole crew to shot a movie on film vs digital. When you're dealing with film rolls that are very expensive you can't afford to screw up that much, whilst with digital you have much more room for miatakes as you have potentially infinite storage to shoot scene

The two last films that I worked on were both shot on 35mm Panavision. My friend Sean, just did a feature that was shot on Super 16 and looks amazing!

OMG Thank you so much for these words , I was searching exactly for this and I thought this thoughts only in my mind do more videos , this platform needs people like you

Love this commentary and your examples are beautiful!😊

I loved the way you speak and the fact that you asked more questions than answers, because this is really one of the most subjective matters ever

Subbed, your presentation style is very cosy yet engaging whilst delivering some great thoughts. I hope your channel blows up!

A great commentary. And your conclusion is spot on. Neither is better than the other. They just both deliver the filmmaker’s vision

Thoughtful and provoking. Thnx. This guy is to watch for.

Please make more videos. Your passion comes through. You’re a very good speaker.

Thank you for making this video. It's such a nuanced perspective on this debate.

What a great video! You're so underrated. The 'what if digi was invented before film' reminded me of the early 2000s crappy digital aesthetic that people like. And as you said nostalgia playing a big role. So i agree that's it's not always about what's technically better but more what vibe you like / what serves the story. Cheers!

I feel like there is a gap in your presentation. Which is, a film's method of exhibition. There is a Swiss university study where they shot identical scenes with digital and celluloid. They found that any discernible difference is to be found in projection. There is a slight flicker with mechanical projectors which gives film its quality. On a base technical level, sure, silver halide crystals are different media to digital sensors, but that is immaterial, when there has not been a purely analogue workflow for nearly 20 years now. Productions shot on film still scan negatives for color grading intended for exhibition via DCP. The films you show in this video like 2001 and Raiders of the Lost Ark, were remastered from scans, with pixels stored with a codec and shown on televisions and computer screens. That's digital! Cinephiles (like myself for a while :) often get into pixel-peeping nonsense comparing the media itself, searching for all these fundamental differences, as if one gazes into a microscope for long enough, one can find a film's soul. However, it's false to say a digital video cannot exactly replicate film. Any aspect of film can be replicated with video, if one wants to achieve a film-like look, from the softness, to the colour space, to even the grain. While it was once correct to say video had less dynamic range than celluloid film, this is no longer the case. Kodak 5207 has 13 stops of range, while the Arri 35 has at least 15. The other aspect often missing from evaluating film vs digital isn't the equipment as such, but the workflow. When shooting with celluloid, productions have fewer opportunities to carry out take after take compared with digital. This can affect both acting performance and shot decisions. Shots become more deliberate with film. Funders and studios also generally require Daily Progress Reports to keep track of production footage, and something Tarantino and Nolan aren't saying out loud, is that shooting on film is a way of evading this, since film labs don't deliver dailies like they used to. In 2023, this debate is a dead horse, but is flogged not only by nostalgics, but certain cinematographers creating 'boutique solutions' to set themselves apart from others nipping at their heels. And so, more than anything else celluloid has become a 'prestige' medium for filmmakers to make a statement about their professional standing and artistic independence. Any comparison though, most certainly is not unresolvable. BTW: 24fps came about for economic reasons, as the slowest the film could run past the gate without the image getting choppy.

great and well-edited video. Thanks!

you just described what I always loved about older movies... the character... the look... digital movies are great! no question!.. but they lack that specific kind of character I grew up with and love so much! ... it just does not look perfect.. and that is exactly what makes it perfect to me.. if that makes any sense :D

Interesting that the first digital example you showed was from Skyfall. I remember seeing that movie in theaters and genuinely not being able to tell that it was shot digitally. I mean, Roger Deakins could shoot a movie with a potato and make it look good but the point is I believe it does matter less nowadays what a movie is shot on. That being said, I grew up with 90's cinema and film just feels right to me for the movie going experience. A Quiet Place was such a breath of fresh air to me after seeing so many sterile looking digital movies. A lot of that is obviously story, acting, locations, lighting, sound design... but being shot on film is just like... "yeah... this is how it should look." I don't know, for me, I just get lost in the experience and that's something truly special about film.

One thing... Film absolutely crushes the blacks. That's one big difference between digital and film, film deals well with overexposure, you can recover details from the highlights even if they're 5-6 steps overexposed, but underexposed areas, not really. If you try to recover shadows on film, you get this really noisy dark grey area. With digital, it's the other way around, you can easily recover details in the shadows, but if you clip the highlights, it's gone for good. Hence why digital photographers use ETTR (expose to the right, basically expose for the highlights) whereas film photographers know to expose for the shadows. Obviously, talented cinematographers or photographers will usually be able to use the correct settings when shooting and in post to produce similar results with both.

GREAT perspective on this i have had very similar thought experiments i banter around with my father but this is the first time i hear of anyone else bring this exact topic up LOVEd the video. many thanks for sharing with the rest of us.

Don't overanalyze it. What are cinematographers choosing to shoot movies with today? If digital had the best image then they all would choose it. But they're not. Film is still being used and 70mm IMAX is rising in popularity.

I came upon this video after searching for “film vs digital”, mostly in terms of photography but I gladly stayed for the movie discussion as I love to hear about that too. I really enjoyed it! It was very interesting and your voice is very soothing. :) Subscribing in hopes to see you post again one day.

@cinefitinc Great video! Enjoyed the whole thing. I don't know much about this and was left wondering; when you ask us to compare the formats we're seeing in this video, since I'm watching it on my phone, isn't everything I'm seeing, digital regardless of how the images were shot? I'm assuming my screen can only produce 0s and 1s.

From a photographer point of view. There is no replacing film. I’ve tried all the best digital cameras. Don’t care for them. Hasselblad x1dii, Fuji gfx system. Sold them. I landed on an old Nikon d700 for digital and my main film camera is a Pentax 67ii. I don’t care what anyone says you can’t manipulate a digital file to look like film. It’s not the same. I am consistently blown away at the scans I get back from the lab of my film work. I can’t say the same for my digital files. However I do still enjoy shooting digital as well. But the love for film is real!

Thank you for this very grounded discussion.

I think Deakins said it best (I'm paraphrasing here): “I like film. I like digital. I think it's good that both exist. I prefer digital nowadays, though.” That's how I feel about this “war.” And I like his films that he shot digitally. They look gorgeous. I just wish he didn't shoot on spherical lenses all the time. I would love to see a Deakins film shot digitally with anamorphic lenses.

As a film maker I think it always comes down to one thing, and that is 'story'. Instead of having the defining answer "one is better than the other" it is more interesting choosing the option that will elivate the story. As you said, film is not as sharp, and have a smoother and warmer shape that gives a magic glow, while digital is sharp, crisp and cool, maybe good at showing reality. :)

I've seen biased videos and discussions on Film vs Digital. This feels like a true observation like looking at the pros and cons of digital vs Film debate. I love it and keep up the great work

On this argument, one of my professors said: "the format doesn't mean anything. Lens choice is what matters in visual storytelling".

Subscribing right now and looking forward to see your subscriber count skyrocket. Great video, mate.

Great video. I particularly liked the measured tone of the comparison.

Only one cinema in my city is showing Oppenheimer on film. Luckily they have a [70mm] projector and so that’s how it’s being shown. The image flickers and the imperfections in the film are sometimes visible, but it was glorious, I haven’t had a cinematic experience so natural, believable, and compelling in years. I’m going again and taking some friends this weekend just to share and relive the film experience. The saddest thing to me is that somewhere in my short lifetime we have gone from film is all there is to film as a boutique rarity, all but a handful of cinemas in a handful of places now have the equipment and expertise to even show film. I do love digital but the loss of film as a mainstream medium for presentation feels like a loss for society, and so for that reason I go on as an advocate for film. I think the clamouring to see Oppenheimer on film shows there is a demand in society for an authentic film experience so I hope this movie contributes to preserving the art of making and showing movies using film.

terrific look at the differences, pluses and minuses between the different ways of capturing images

I think the different with film is that the chemical process adds a certain amount of variance or imperfections that don't happen the same way with digital cameras. I see the same thing happen with traditional vs digital paintings. There's something about the physical painting process that makes the final image uniquely beautiful because of the unexpected ways the paint will behave. It's hard to get digital cameras to do that. Usually, people add in "mistakes" to simulate it, but it's not the same. The other thing is that digital cameras seems to break the illusion of "cinema." Their clarity is awesome. It can make it feel like you're really there, but you sacrfice the hyperreality of film. You can see that it's just a set, just make-up, just people wandering around. That sense of peering through a window into another world is lost to a certain degree. We get this with music as well. Vinyl adds a character to music that isn't present on digital files. I prefer digital music for the clarity, but it's undeniable that there's something about music coming from vinyl that makes it more expressive, engaging, and "real," even though the digital file is a perfect copy of the performance.

Very interesting topic and well-handled. Both are good mediums, aesthetically. Does one require more care and effort in lighting or in post-processing? As a photographer, not a videographer, I would think film has less latitude in those respects, but maybe not. And what about the archival properties of each medium?

I really love that you posed the question about if film is just nostalgic because it came first and if that is the reason it is so favored. It’s something that has been bouncing around in my head too. I also need to start a channel so I don’t drive my family insane with my nerdy niche rants lmao keep it up

Thank you for presentation of this topic, video editing pace is very comfortable to watch. In last period avoiding lot of RU-vid content because of hectic and speedy way of producing.

Loved the video I look forward to seeing more from you

Don't forget all medium and large-budget films shot either on film or digital are often heavily reworked in compositing colour grading and VFX. Often, not much is left from the original plate.

Nice review man !

I have been thinking about this a lot. You have filled in a few gaps in my understanding of the conflict. Recently, I watch an old classic, A Christmas Story, with a couple of young people who had never seen it. As soon as the movie began I had a sinking feeling. I could tell that something I cherished about the film was gone. Soon the two young people lost interest and left the room. I realized that the movie had been digitized. I could not finish the movie. My goal is to be a film maker, but this issue, film or digital, is deeply concerning to me. Thanks so much for your post.

The best "digital vs film" comperation I have ever seen! Totaly what was on my maind.. That the past memories has an effect on our choice!

I love this video! Hoping your channel has more or you have a podcast

I remember an interesting reddit discussion (which unfortunately i doubt i could find again) in which, it was explained that digital looks more like how you see the world with your eyes and film like how you view your dreams and memories, which actually makes film more evocative despite not being as realistic.

Great ideas here. The revenant is probably my favorite movie of the last few years. Although one thing that actually took me OUT of the reality of the experience was the lens flares. They look so sharp and are obviously from a modern digital camera and lens.. which to me pulled me out of the time period it’s based in. I wonder if it was shot on film would vintage glass flares feel more “correct”? I remember reading that, apart from a few small scenes, almost everything in the film was filmed using natural environmental light. Would this have been one of the factors in choosing digital, given its flexibility across light sensitivity and sensor size compared to film? Thanks for the insights!

Personally, I think I’ve always favored digital because in the back of my mind I know that it’s basically a computer “trying” to approximate what it’s capturing as opposed to the more organic and scientific processing of film. But despite all of that I will never dispute the fact that digital can be beautiful at times. So regarding the point u made about “what if digital existed before science?”, I’d still probably favor film if I knew digital was merely an approximation.

Internet totally needed this video. So thanks a lot

Very interesting. I grew up in a village in Alaska. We did not have a movie theatre. So I grew up watching VHS tapes. 30 + years later I’ve collected some of my favorite movies on VHS. It out weighs my desire to see a movie on film in a theatre. Nostalgia is strong.

Very interesting video, my friend! My passion for movies is deeply bound to cinematography. I'm 44 now and I had the pleasure and privilege to start in photography with analog cameras. I remember to use an old Zenit camera while I was discovering and learning the art. A fun fact is that I always had the feeling that old pictures from the 70's and 60's, took with good cameras and good perspectives, was more artistic than my shots, in the late 90's. And, for each new camera I use I feel I'm loosing something. As the excess of information on digital is making the thing looks everytime more and more artificial. But, knowing I'm a very saudosist person, you threw me in an unquiet paradox.

I would love to see you talk more about cinema. You are great at talking about films

Love your thoughts on this subject and love your slow considered delivery, such a pleasant change from the crash bang high speed delivery of most RU-vid screamers. And you didn’t open with the tiresome “Whats up guys”. Please don’t change.

Such a well put together stream of thoughts! Well done Sir 😃! As far as the argumentation... as you said it, the truth is probably in the middle. And yes, what we grew up with, how conditioned we are and what brings all the memories and emotions back is what seems best to us now. Still, as both a digital and film photographer, there is this undeniable nice feeling I get when shooting with film. There is something about us being "analog" and physical beings that makes us relate better to film, to printed photos, to old records, to manual vehicles. Of all the current modern cars, full of electronics, fake exhaust sounds, gameboy interfaces and iPads, there are none that provoke ANY kind of nice feeling within me. Same with endless stream of music on streaming services, entertainment here on RU-vid, with virtual productions, sound stages, LED screens, etc. There's so little magic left. We almost don't have to work for and wait for anything anymore. With film you do have to....

Great vid hope you upload more

I'm a few months late commenting on this wonderful analysis of film vs. digital, however there are other factors at play that most people aren't discussing with this topic that isn't based on the quality of either medium, but the politics and agendas deep within it. I apologize for the length of my post, but it is what it is. 1. George Lucas - There's no doubt how much of an impact Lucas has made on the film industry, especially on technological side of things. ILM, Skywalker Sound, THX and Pixar. Lucas was always one of the biggest champions for pushing technology forward and moving away from shooting on celluloid and over to digital. He intended to shoot Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace digitally, but the camera systems still weren't quite able to mimic the quality of film. It wasn't until Episode II that he was able to utilize a Sony Camera system that allowed him to shoot digitally. Filmmakers like George, David Fincher and Francis Ford Coppola have embraced digital, others like many of the filmmakers mentioned in this videos and others still prefer to shoot film. While this isn't exactly a specific reasoning for my overall points I'll get to, I think it was worth mentioning. 2. The Independent Filmmaker - While this point is going to be based solely on my on personal experiences and run-ins with indie filmmakers throughout the late 1990's and early 2000's, I think it's worth mentioning. I met many indie filmmakers who were championing for the death of film, who viewed it not only as an archaic way to make movies, but an oppressive and elitist technology that didn't allow true independents like themselves to be able to make movies without having enormous budgets with the costs of film cameras, film and developing. They felt Hollywood controlled the technology and equipment, not allowing for the little guy to break in, and therefore the sooner the death of film came about and cheaper digital tech became available, it would be the death saber to "the industry" that controlled everything. Of course filmmakers like Kevin Smith, Robert Rodriquez, Steven Soderbergh, Edward Burns and so many others who were nobodies and shooting on film at the time was a moot point to them. I still see some of this attitude towards the use of celluloid today, especially from people who've never shot with it before. Not only do they cite the costs associated with it, but look at it as some sort of old man's oppressive way of making movies and needs to die and go away forever. 3. The Tech Companies - When companies like RED really starting taking off, they started making deals with studios and production companies in trying to get them to convert from film to their products. This shouldn't be a surprise as this is simply how business is done in every industry. However because the film industry is as small as it is, it did create a heavy hit to companies like Panavision, ARRI, Kodak and Fuji. Fuji eventually got out of the motion picture film business altogether, and Panavision and ARRI had to start focusing on building digital cameras. A lot of backroom deals between the studios and these new digital camera companies definitely played their part in where we are today. 4. Preservation - For all the pro digital and tech bros who want to see film go away entirely, it simply can't for preservation sake. While most movies and television shows are now shot digitally, Kodak still manufactures a lot of celluloid to the studios to restore and preserve the thousands of movies shot for over one hundred years. I recommend doing a RU-vid search for "Jaws | Restoring the Film | Blu-ray Bonus Feature Clip" that talks about how for archival purposes that a new negative is struck. This goes for all the studios, boutique physical media labels and archival houses like the National Film Registry. 5. New Filmmakers Should Learn to Shoot on Film - There is something very different shooting a movie on film vs. digital, regardless if your purpose is the same thing, which is to capture a moving image. There's a very difference balance and environment on a set when shooting film, dare I say one needs to be more disciplined and decisive. There's a fantastic 12 minute video here on RU-vid called "Making a 35mm short film | Lab & scanning process" where some young filmmakers have the opportunity to shoot film with Panavision cameras, and they realize themselves that it's exactly that. Shooting film requires a lot more preparation made beforehand due to the heft and weight of the equipment, the cost of the film and having a limited amount of takes because of it. This is just my personal opinion, but it's one I strongly hold. 6. Being Told "You Can't" - This comes back to my second point about how some indie filmmakers wanting to see the death of celluloid because they felt it was an elitist way of making movies meant only for the rich and powerful, which is something I've never believed. Now that digital has become the dominant tool, the rest of us are supposed to fall inline and move to this technology. I'm someone who prefers to shoot on film, but I'm constantly told by my friends, filmmakers and the industry as a whole that I need to "get with it" and shoot digitally. It's a dying technology that needs to go away, and I have to embrace what is going to naturally be the only way to make movies in the future. When I say people like Spielberg, Tarantino, Nolan, Paul Thomas Anderson are pro-film, they say "well you're not Spielberg or Tarantino, and it's just a 'successful' auteur's medium now," all I think of is could you imagine telling a painter they can no longer use a canvas and paint and must use a tablet now? This goes back to my first point about George Lucas who always outlines and writes his scripts with pencils and lined yellow sheets of paper. Would anyone dare tell George Lucas that he can no longer write his screenplays that way, and he must use a computer and Final Draft, yet he does that to his friend Spielberg, always mocking him about still shooting on film. The whole thing is hypocritical, but also is everything the anti-film indie filmmakers were supposedly fighting against they themselves have become. As an artist, don't I have a say and choice with the tools I prefer to work with? Isn't that part of being an artist, choosing the right tools we're most comfortable with that let's us unleash our creativity the best way we know how? This is probably the thing that drives me the most crazy, how I'm constantly being told either "I can't" or "I shouldn't" because it's an old fashioned and out of date way to make my art. I also find it interesting that so many young filmmakers look up to people like Spielberg, Nolan, Tarantino and Paul Thomas Anderson, all who advocate for film, yet none of these young filmmakers seem to take their advice. That's my two cents on the matter.

For some reason, I didn't like how new movies feel, and I wasn't sure exactly why until I understood the difference between film and digital. It really makes a difference for me, mostly how I used to see movies when I was younger. I think digital ones are closer to reality and feel like I am watching a documentary rather than a fictional story.

The answer is not as fun as the discussion. Thank you for your research and effort into this. I think you hit a point where it’s difficult to really say. Both mediums have their advantages and disadvantages. I feel it comes down to tone and style. Some stories need a certain medium to fully illustrate them. The search for the next film that uses either is exciting to see what happens. I felt The Batman 2022 used digital in a very unique way and its cinematographer uses it not unlike a painter would use oils vs acrylic or vice versa.

The best gems are always hidden. Great video, mate, thanks for sharing!

What microphone are you using? Sounds really nice :)

Thanks for the video, There is something very important what in my opinion you forgot to mention here is, the avalability what High end cinema cameras giving you to , process them in post , and very sure when pro colorist does it , its very hard to tell weather it was shot on film or digital . 12-16 bit raw images have that range to be processed , soften etc. Also for s final texture some directors filming out a digital image in the end of production and thats where its getting even harder to guess if it was shot on film or digitally.

What microphone are you using?

Great discussion. I love almost all of these films and they all have their own spot for all of us, because the film 70mm films do seem to have a different "pace" not sure if that is real or not

Until I see an actual comparison of two identical shots with the same lighting conditions I am not convinced. Feels like arguing "24 fps is objectively better" even though we only think that because we're USED to it, and only reason that trend started was to cut costs.

Does shooting with film force other decisions, like those related to special effects? Deciding film vs digital may have a cascade of other decisions resulting from them that creates a different feel or look of the overall movie.

I had the good fortunate of forming a friendship with one of Terrence Malick's former collaborators, and among the books he recommended I read was "The Virtual Life of Film" by D.N. Rodowick. It can get pretty philosophic, but I think part of what we're dealing with when comparing digital to film is philosophic.

I read somewhere, that the reason that films were 24fps was because after moving away from silent movies in 16fps, 24fps was the best for sound comprehension while using the least possible film. I assume because it was to keep the costs of printing film down. Your video was a great thought-proving watch!

Good cinema still comes down to good story, blocking and lighting. This is an interesting topic for sure. I would say film has a more ethereal feel, almost like a dream vs. digital being more of a representation of reality. I think its interesting you pointed out how and why filmmakers might choose one medium over another.

From my eyes, older movies look more real despite the imperfections, though I actually like the grain and pixels here and there. I don't find modern films all that visually pleasing or intimate. They look like video games. And I miss practical effects. I was watching Jean Claude Van Damme's Cyborg a little while ago; you can tell the makers of the film did the best they could with what little they had. It gives a creative and magical vibe.

It's not just about nostalgia. A movie is an illusion and we often adopt practices that best sell that illusion. 24 fps for example is much better for making a fight or chase feel more real and intense because it can make motion feel faster than it actually was in camera. HFR completely wipes the thrill away. We can hide a lot of sleight of hand with motion blur. Cinema is about story and emotion and often the thing that's "superior" on paper in terms of numbers isn't the best way to tell stories that connect with the audience.

7:00 yeah fellowship of the ring looks weird to me too, I think the outdoor scenes had some sort of blur that got rid of the sharpness at some point. Probably an editing decision, nothing to do with the film medium itself at all

I think the reason gandalf looks different is because of age but also there is a weird cloudy effect that plagues the hobbit trilogy

I think both film and digital are superb and if used correctly and in the right circumstances will produce outstanding results. I admire both formats.

I feel like modern camera's can emulate film very very well. The Alexa 35 has such soft roll off and amazing dynamic range, with a good grade and some grain added I think you would be hard pressed to truly be able to tell the difference.

Have you seen the comparisions by Steve Yedlin? He shoots digital but makes it look like shot on celluloid.

what about aspect ratios? I love to talk about that but all my friends think I'm nuts because I can travel 800 miles to watch a movie in 70mm IMAX or 1.43 digital laser.

Isn't all film scanned into a digital intermediate and color graded digitally anyway?

Beautiful video, thank you and greets from Russia 👏 I mean, listening to your thoughts was interesting and also aesthetically pleasing because of quality, really

Wasn't the revenant shot in IMAX (analog) or am I confusing something there?

This was a very interesting video to stubble across I think you make a lot of excellent points, and I agree that this is probably a discussion that is more about the middle ground than about one being right and the other wrong. I will argue though that very few people actually can take advantage of any of the benefits that movies being on film provides. The vast majority of people watch films digitally be it projected digitally in theatres or on home media or through streaming etc. there’s a difference for sure but it’s not as profound of one with all of these degrees of separation. Colours are still going to be altered by your tv screen for instance. Another thing is that film is incredibly variable compared to digital. Two prints of a single film in a theatre will look different, there are imperfections and noise that will vary between them. Likewise on older films that have had restoration done on them will look nothing like they did before, sometimes even being made sharper or more vibrant than it did when originally released. That’s not to say it’s bad it’s just much less consistent than a digital film, which have not needed such work to preserve them. (Let’s not even get started on digital noise reduction or how many films have been made to look more digital as a result)

Thanks for this video. One of the better comparisons I have seen regarding Film vs. digital. I gotta say that viewing the examples you showed I did prefer film. I do have a nostalgic attachment to film but I try to be objective. I did see in your examples that digital can also be artistic and can be great but its hyper clarity compared to films nuance, texture and subtlety, comes in second for me.

Loved your video and information and all the comparisons but I hated your aspect ratio choice for this (3:2 i think). On my TV all the Cinema Scope Footage from those beautiful movies had Letterboxes AND Pillowboxes. Maybe consider just doing it on 16:9 next time.

good day, sir. I really appreciate your thought on this debate. thank you

Question out of context - Is this video in 1.5 aspect ratio?

Can you please make a video on Oppenheimer

Thnks, i find this fascinating

I actually have some sort of dislike for the digital look, because most cameras seriously lack dynamic range, and it discourages me to know that I can't capture it all. There is also like you said, a sterile sharpness and look to digital. I've thought about rotating my entire camera 45 degrees, so that I can film with the pixels of my image sensor at an angle so that things render and look like natural film grain... Any thoughts?

24 fps was about cost. It was the fewest frames possible to not notice that it's in fact a sequence of still images, and the rest is history. Film was expensive, and when you're a studio and to it at scale, it adds up.

god damn this was a relaxing video to watch/listen to. You should podcast bro.

The other thing to look at is presentation mediums. Kodak's 2393 print stock achieves a contrast ratio of 250,000:1. It doesnt matter what 35mm projector thats coming out of, it could be a Simplex assembled from spares or it could be a $300,000 rebuilt DP70, or a Kinoton FP75E (yes there will be image steadiness differences between them, thats a given). Your contrast ratio will be the same, with the right lenses, it will be just as sharp. Not the same for digital. Modern laser projectors (Barco SP4k, Dolby Vision, etc) are only just now approaching that contrast ratio with laser, but that comes with the downside of fringing and speckle. And you need special screens for them. And those projectors cost obscene amounts of money. Don't want to spend that money? Want a "reasonable" $60,000 projector? Yeah enjoy a mind-blowing 2,000:1 contrast ratio. Film is fundamentally the best method of projecting a movie onto a large screen, no matter how you shoot it. The ONLY people who lose when movies are distributed on film are studios, as it costs them more upfront to distribute on film than it does on digital. Who eats that shifted cost? Theater owners. The pandemic didn't kill theaters, digital did.

To me the difference that can never be made up between film and digital is in the faces. When I think of film all the most lasting images are of the faces. I dont know what the technical words for it are but they just look better. They look more dynamic, more real, have better contrast. I think maybe it has to do with the black and white levels you mentioned but I just prefer the look of a good close up on film over digital any day of the week.

In the examples you gave, of whether certain scenes are more/less impactful because they were shot on film, or digital, I genuinely do feel that film does add to it. Raiders of the Lost Ark, that whole sequence undeniably has great framing and blocking, but I do genuinely believe that it would be less impactful with the ultra crisp clarity of digital. Same with The Revenant, it’s almost distracting how sharp the movie is at times because it’s shot digitally. It sometimes doesn’t look like a period piece, but modern actors playing dress up in 2015 running around in the woods. Something about the texture, softness of light and film grain movement, I believe, would have helped immerse me more in the time period of The Revenant if it was shot on film.

It's a great question 'what if digital came first'. If digital was indeed first I'm not sure the actual advent of cinema or movies would have even happened. The whole reason for film was to showcase the technology of high resolution imaging. This is where our performers and artists come into play. With digital technology those artists of film are obsolete. This is why digital will never replace FILM as a visual narrative. Digital is true to life and it's how we view the world through near unlimited content. Film is inherently a delicate art form requiring great care.

I just think digital cameras, audio etc it’s all so slick and perfect. I feel without a bit of roughness it loses vitality.

I think the lenses share the magic of "film-like" picture. You know, Panavision and Cooke have that "field curvature" and geometric abberations (swirl-like, barrel-like) that are so cinematic. They also have lower lens element count (espesially Cooke's). That may provide that "film" look, "cinematic" look even on digital medium. Also, good colorization can also add to that impression.

I personally prefer the pin sharp look of a clean high res digital image, but I do love the charming texture of film! The 8K restoration of Baraka is just undeniably breathtaking! Generally I do think set design, lighting and colour grading are probably more important in giving a film its look.