The short answer is “No, but…” and when the “but…” comes in it´s getting interesting.

Within the last decade(s) there has been a huge buzz around digital filmmaking, some are absoluetely convinced, some would never shoot on anything other than film, but does it really need to be that way?

I´m always amused by the Kodak ads in American Cinematographer where famous DOPs compair shooting digital like cheating on their wives and if you turn the page there´s an ad for the ARRIFLEX D-21.

Film vs. Digital

So again, is film dying or will it compete to digital filmmaking?

I´m really the wrong person to answer that incredibly huge question, but for the sake of this post i´ve got some thoughts about the topic.

Recently i talked to a friend of mine who happens to be a professional photographer. He told me that he just bought a Nikon D700 and i have been quite curious because he always shot on film.

He said that shooting digital has numerous benefits, but of course also some disadvantages. If you, or better, if the client knows what he wants then shooting digital is way easier and cheaper than on film. But if you later on change your mind and decide not to take the full body shot but just want the face you could run into problems when shooting digital.

I think it´s just a matter of time when shooting digital will be quite equal to film, but even then the days of film don´t have to be over – or have they?

So shoot digital or on film?

I´m really just scratching the surface with my knowledge about shooting digital vs. film, but in my opinion the only answer right now is “it depends”.

For sure there are hundreds of arguments for each, but if you happen to have a low budget then the answer is quite easy – go digital (and to be honest – in times like these, who can really afford huge budgets?).

With the current technology of RED cameras, the ARRIFLEX D-21 or other camera brands (Sony, etc.) that allow to use “real” film lenses and HD monitors the possibilities are huge.
I´ve been involved in shootings with both the RED cam and the ARRIFLEX D-21, and i´ve been really really impressed when i took a look at the HD monitor – you see what you get.

So RED and ARRI are the answer?

Not only those high class cameras are an argument for digital filmmaking, nearly all of my projects and also the upcoming ones are shot with HD cameras with 35mm adapter. You come close to the film look with grain and depth of field and so on, i think that´s an really affordable way to shoot great footage for a more than affordable price.

For my next short movie i thought about shooting on 16mm, the budget would have probably allowed that, but then i talked to my partner-director and we both decided we need flexibility especially for that kind of movie. Having to worry about the costs and overhead of shooting on film was not paying off for us – so we´ll be shooting HD with 35mm adapter.

I think with my age i´m a child of digital filmmaking, it could pretty well be that i´ll never shoot on film for one of my own projects – but as long as the footage is more than satisfying i won´t regret that.

Just my opinion

Yeah, that´s just my opinion – but who am i?

You should absolutely have a look at the following videos, these are just some examples for the benefits of shooting digital:

Reverie
It´s pretty incredible that this short movie hasn´t even been shot with a film camera, it was shot with the Canon EOS 5D Mark II, a digital SLR (!).
(You should definitely watch the HD version of this clip!)

And here is an interview with Robert Rodriguez from 2003 (!) about shooting digital:

Well, as said before, neither is film dead nor is shooting digital way superior, but i think one should not underestimate the power and flexibility of shooting digital!

Tags: arri, canon, digital filmmaking, hd, red