Keanu Reeves and Tribeca Doc 'Side by Side' Asks: Digital vs. Film, Which Side Are You On?

Gotta love Scorsese's even-handed reply. It's just different. Did novelists go through this kind of soul-searching when they moved from quill and ink to typewriter to computer? Some painters like oil, and some like acrylic.

Going to check this out asap. I was like that guy in the trailer. I hated 3D, I thought it was simply for marketing too. It became clear to me that it was just the way people used it. When I seen Hugo in 3D I finally felt like 3D has a place. Just have to use it right.

I'm hoping for a balance when I see this. I think I'll get that.

I don't believe the audience cares. They notice if it stands
out, but good story distracts from the perils of both.

I hate 3D too, the only movie I liked it for was TinTin. 3D and live action doesn't sit right with me

They are right about it being a different aesthetic if you're working on a major film, but for the independent filmmaker, I enjoy the time spent planning and thinking when working on film rather than digital to get the shot perfect. I liken it to taking a photo with a 36 exposure roll of 35mm versus on a digital camera. With film, you frame correctly, think about all the little moments and you make that one shot count. In digital, its hard not to succumb to the urge of just shooting everything no matter what with the hopes of one of those moments working. Also the excited/anxious feeling of waiting for the dailies to see what you shot and what the film did on its own to add that extra bit of art. In digital its hard to shake the instant affirmation of watching dailies from the camera and constantly saying "we'll make it look pretty in post."

With that said, in 2006 I left film and have done digital ever since. And digital works so well for me. Perhaps I'm just nostalgic :)

Great documentary. rented it yesterday. I especially liked what Fincher and Scorsese had to say. Storytelling is the main thing, format comes after. Film or digital, doesn't matter. They both have their advantages, and great stories can be told with both mediums. I hope that film is always around, but I think it's good to embrace the future.

In 30 years or so (maybe much less) this argument won't matter anymore. I'll watch it nevertheless.

The film shows an interesting divide between the people championing digital and those clinging to film until the bitter end. I think a lot of this comes down to an ugly question that new technology raises, a question stirs fear in many of the cinematographers interviewed for this piece: what is the role of the cinematographer in the digital world?

This point is touched upon by the Ballhaus interview, but not so much in the doc itself, except for the very real fact that an image, in digital workflow, goes through numerous hands (editor, colorist, compositor, VFX artist, etc.) who each tweak the image to their liking until it's finally declared "done".

Traditionally, it's the cinematographer who decides when the image is done: as the director of photography, the look of the film is his (or her) singular vision. Traditionally, the cinematographer's role is to support the narrative through imagery--through lighting, composition, and movement choices. The cinematographer creates the mood of the scene. Conveys emotional subtext. This is their job--many great DPs never even touch the camera.

Unfortunately in the past decade, but more particularly since the DSLR "revolution", many "cinematographers" have become little more than camera operators--their role is simply to capture the image, rather than to control it, or give it meaning. And cameras have become cheap enough that producers request certain models and "cinematographers" buy these cameras, content only to operate without adding any narrative quality, and the cycle perpetuates. Get a DSLR, slap it on a slider, and you've got a natural, dynamic shot. Right?

When Joe and I are asked over and over again "what's your top ISO?" there's always a noticeable frown when we answer: "400". But here's the thing: we WANT you to light. If you are making a fiction film, lighting is an extremely IMPORTANT part of telling your story. But many young filmmakers--or at least unseasoned filmmakers--think they want a camera that means they do not have to light. That means you don't have to think about what you're shooting. Canon wants you to buy a 5dIII so you don't have to light--it's a huge selling point of their cameras. They hire Vincent LaForet to make shorts at night in DTLA proving you don't need to light--because Canon doesn't make lights, so what do they care?

But in most cases, not lighting hurts your project. Not lighting means you aren't exercising control over your image--you're not thinking about your image. Which means you're not thinking about your story. Let's be honest: how many iconic movie moments--or even simply emotional movie moments--have been shot using natural light in poor lighting conditions? How many have been meticulously lit? The answer is obvious.

I was talking to someone on the ASC education board and he said that, when meeting recently with teachers and film professors, the question was raised as to what they were supposed to be teaching. This depressed the hell out of me. And I think it's what many of the digitally-hesitant cinematographers in the documentary fear: on a film set, when all the voodoo is on the stock inside the camera, they're the boss. But will they ever really be able to do their jobs on a digital set? If they can't, will anyone?

Going to write a blog post on this over the weekend if I can (I've been ill for the past few weeks, gross), but it's a huge frustration of mine, and I think the major reason why--as opposed to questions of image quality-- so many notable cinematographers remain skeptical of digital acquisition.

I've been reading American Cinematographer magazine recently, and I think the debate posed by the different filmmakers there is more compelling than the arguments against digital that I'm seeing here. I'm slightly biased, I think digital is fine for most uses, but film should be in your toolbox for creating the moods you want to create, and I've come to the conclusion that the only way I can learn how film can be superior is to be shown shots where the film technology did something positive that a digital camera wouldn't have done.

The interview clips here that speak against digital aren't really speaking against digital, they're speaking against a change to their entire structure, and it sounds to my young ears like they're speaking out of fear and tradition for tradition's sake.

And what does 3D even have to do with it? If you can't do 3D on film, what were the 50s and 80s 3D booms made with? I think 3D has yet to actualize itself properly as a school of art because it's been relegated to a gimmick by executives and nauseated audiences.

"This point is touched upon by the Ballhaus interview, but not so much in the doc itself, except for the very real fact that an image, in digital workflow, goes through numerous hands (editor, colorist, compositor, VFX artist, etc.) who each tweak the image to their liking until it’s finally declared “done”."

This process long predates digital video. It goes back at least to the dawn of color film, when you had to do color timing. Probably even further than that, because even in monochrome you have to match exposures, which you're unlikely to get perfect in camera. I grant that "fix it in post" is the adage of lazy filmmaking, but it had to be invented before it was a crutch.

I would say roughly 70% of the DPs and Gaffers I HAVE WORKED WITH would rather shoot film. Film isn't dead except to producers. Because they think its cheaper. Even though It roughly comes out to being the same. Yes, you think I am crazy for saying that because once you hit certain budget it doesn't matter if you shoot on film or digital in terms of price. And if your going to shoot on Digital please quite being RED camera fan boys and try to get your hands on Arri Alexa. The Alexa is made by a company that actually understands film and the filmmakers needs. Way better camera and workflow then anything Red puts out.

This is why film is so important: It teaches discipline for the DP, ACs, ADs, Director, G&E, Actors, everyone on the damn set. Especially on indie sets using film. Your not going to let that film run through the gate until the frame is lit the way it should be Because you might only have one or two or three takes to get what you need. I will still shoot film over digital any day of the week.

A painter can work in oil or acrylis or Water color. A sculptor can work in Marble, wood or sand, The art doesn't change It is only perceived differently. Film lends itself to a particular tpe of story as does video. Let them co-exist. Just tell the story well.

I just think it's amazing that it took someone with the creativity and talent of Keanu Reeves to figure out he could make money by producing a doc on the film v. digital video controversy.

The craft of photography is lighting, composition and color. I unfortunately hear too many folks on the digital side talking about the "camera" being the answer for this. Shame. The film side know its all about the skill of the photographer. There's the divide. Film or digital, it's still all about the craft.

One thought for the digital side: If not for digital, many of us wouldn't be able to film anything at all. Digital technology puts tools in the hands of artists, and lets them work in a medium that otherwise would be simply impossible by virtue of expenses. I certainly agree that then anyone can access the technology--and thus some really terrible films are made. At the same time, the beauty of the art is that the real art, the real ability, and the real talent will rise to the surface among the greats. This then means that some potential filmmakers will be able to create something that puts them on the map, because they can afford a DSLR, etc. Digital technology is like making making paint affordable for a potential Rembrandt of film. It also means that the walls are going to get painted on by the kids, but isn't it worth the discovery of more greats?