FILM vs. DIGITAL

[kakashi7]

i dont know which camera to get.

FILM
or
DIGITAL

because im making a movie and there will be added Special FX in the movie, im not sure if im able to edit FILM with Special FX.
If I am able to do that, i would like to know how.
I already know i can edit DIGITAL video, but the bad part about DIGITAL is that is doesnt have at all near as much F-stops as FILM does.... F-stops being the color tones that the camera captures

this is a link to what i mean about color tones


FILM, you can have bright colors and dark colors in the same picture w/o any of the colors losing their information
but with DIGITAL, if you have the brights and the darks, the Exposure will be to high or to low, making colors blur out and lose their information... if someone can help me, it would be greatly apreciated.

[Franglais]

Let's get a few basics straight:

All special effects nowadays are done in digital. If you shot film then you would have to convert it to digital anyway. I don't have any experience of effects in movies but in stills I find I have better control of the results when working on an original digital image rather than on a scanned film image

The difference between film and digital that you are referring to is not the number of colours. Digital images can record at least 16 million colours, which is more than the eye can distinguish. You are talking about burning out highlights in contrasty lighting. Film has an S-shaped reponse to light - highlights gradually burn out in a natural-looking way, whereas digital highlights tend to go from colourful to washed out abruptly. The solution is to adjust the lighting by using a reflector to fill in the shadows and reduce the contrast.

[Greg McCary]

I think Digital would be fine. You can do a lot in post processing to color. As Charles stated film has to be scanned and you lose quality there. They are also dozens of different brands and type films and they all produce unique colors. So if you used film, which one? That would depend on what you were shooting and what mood you were after.
My vote would be digital.
Greg

[freygr]

I think Digital would be fine. You can do a lot in post processing to color. As Charles stated film has to be scanned and you lose quality there. They are also dozens of different brands and type films and they all produce unique colors. So if you used film, which one? That would depend on what you were shooting and what mood you were after.
My vote would be digital.
Greg

Yes film has to be scanned but the scan if done correctly will look better and any digital photo/video taken in the midday sun. Movie film will always have more resolution and color fidelity than NSTC video any day to the week. But film cost $$$ and video cost pennies.

[kakashi7]

Thank you Charles for correcting me and i apreciate the help you all have given me. And to freygr, thats the reason why i didnt know which camera to buy, bc film looks so much better than digital does... but the expense that i have to pay is crazy! If there is anything else that any of you know about the differences between these two i would like to know.

THNX

[freygr]

Thank you Charles for correcting me and i apreciate the help you all have given me. And to freygr, thats the reason why i didnt know which camera to buy, bc film looks so much better than digital does... but the expense that i have to pay is crazy! If there is anything else that any of you know about the differences between these two i would like to know.

THNX

Digital Cameras only have about 5 stops of range I've been told, about the same as slide film. But negative movie film has a lot more range, and that is why it looks so much better. There is a 4 x 5 Scanning back for stills that claims 9 stops of range but it works like a flat bed document scanner.

[Franglais]

Digital Cameras only have about 5 stops of range I've been told, about the same as slide film. But negative movie film has a lot more range, and that is why it looks so much better. There is a 4 x 5 Scanning back for stills that claims 9 stops of range but it works like a flat bed document scanner.

What I'm about to say is based on my experience with still cameras, not movies.

My experience is that if you shoot JPG then you are in a similar position to slide film and contrasty lighting is difficult to correct. If you shoot RAW and you have a good editor then you can often control contrasty lighting as well as with negative film. The digital sensor (especially on the D200) holds up the midtones and bringing up the center of the curve gives better results than trying to do the same thing on a scanned colour negative which tends to go grainy and yucky.

[freygr]

What I'm about to say is based on my experience with still cameras, not movies.

My experience is that if you shoot JPG then you are in a similar position to slide film and contrasty lighting is difficult to correct. If you shoot RAW and you have a good editor then you can often control contrasty lighting as well as with negative film. The digital sensor (especially on the D200) holds up the midtones and bringing up the center of the curve gives better results than trying to do the same thing on a scanned colour negative which tends to go grainy and yucky.

The quality of scanned film is determined by the film density, if it's under or over exposed the scan tends to go grainy and yucky. If the scanning is not done on a real film scanner the amount of leeway on exposure will be much less.

[Skyman]

hi Kakashi,
welcome to the forums, you will find a lot of valuable input in the digital video forum

[kakashi7]

Thanks for the link Skyman, it helps alot. And for anyone else, if you have advice on ways to make video look as close to film as posible, that would be awesome...

[Skyman]

hmm if tonal range is what you are after then carefully controlling your lighting will reduce the contrast so you can fit your scenes into the latitude of the medium you are using (remember that most productions will use a lot of artificial lighting even in the daytime). sometimes it is best to work backwards at this. how is your end result going to be exported? are you aiming for cinema release, dvd or hd dvd or blue ray, or hd tv or sd tv or web? if you are aiming for cinema release most movies these days are shot on film, scanned to digital for editing and special effects, colour graded and mastered to a digital tape and exported back to film for final grading and then distribution to the cinemas. if this is what you intend to do then talk to your local cinema pro lab. (they are usually listed at the back of film making magazines) they will be able to advise you on what formats work for them with the output that you desire. remember that feature films can be shot on digital (think of star wars) but that even those with heavy special effects tend to be shot on film and scanned. If you do go digital, camera choice and the way you process your footage will count for a lot. especially if using more than one camera. good white balance is essential and if you can black point and grey point balance as well. also if your cameras support it create some colour profiles that help capture the mood you are after, be that super saturated or somewhat muted. also test how different colours are reproduced with your camera and lenses. some cameras will struggle with certain shades (but now we are getting into the complex world of tv safe colours) anyway the point is that some of your costuming and lighting might need a bit of a rethink at this point, so these tests are best made in the pre production phase.

[kakashi7]

WOW SKYMAN! you really know your stuff! that bit about the whole process from recoding through film then converting it to video to add the FX and converting it back to film helped alot and also about the cinema pro lab helps so much, but i was wondering where i can find a film making magazine, and also a name of one too....

Thanks again

[Skyman]

my personal favourite is IF or inside film (formerly independent filmaker), but it is an Australian magazine and as such so are the labs that advertise in it (although many of them have worked on big budget films like the matrix and Lord of the Rings when they were shooting here. Atlab (one of the best locally) actually built an on location processing facility for Lord of the rings where reels were processed scanned, graded and a rough edit done in the field, and I am not really sure what the American equivalents would be. I suggest check your local bookstore or newsagent perhaps MJS will know.