Digital vs. Film: Is film dead?

How digital technology revolutionized the film industry?

Side by Side (2012) Trailer

Side by Side (2012) is a documentary about how digital technology has revolutionized the filmmaking process. “Movies thrill us and capture our imagination. Film has helped us share our experiences and dreams.” But as more and more Hollywood film are shot digitally, is film dead? Can digital technology replace chemical film? 

The documentary explores the issue from the viewpoint of directors, cinematographers, editors, color timers, and actors. 

Firstly, digital technology has changed the filmmaking process in production. For cinematographers, filmmaking is a craftsmanship of both aesthetics and technical knowledge. As a cinematographer, I have learned that it is about “painting with light”. We use equipment and tools such as lenses, filters, and lighting to recreate the reality using our vivid imagination. With the technical revolution, digital cameras are smaller and lighter. They are handier for difficult angles which are inaccessible by traditional big film cameras. People have always argued that the quality of digital images have no match for the quality of film. However, the invention of Arri Alexa and Red Epic has revolutionized the industry. They have a broader dynamic range, resolution, sensor and color. Digital images have developed from standard definition (SD) to high definition (HD), 2K and then 4K. It also lowers the cost of filmmaking as film is more expensive. 

Traditionally, dailies are sent to the lab to process overnight and can only be viewed the next day. But with digital video cameras, they can show the images on the monitor and watch immediately. 

In post-production, editors in the editing bay no longer splice the physical films but use non-linear editing software such as Avid. Digital technology has facilitated the visual effects (VFX) process. Moreover, color timing process is also done digitally. 

Digital technology’s another influence in filmmaking is 3D. As a matter of fact, more and more films are shot or made into 3D in post-production. But I don’t think it is necessary unless it helps to tell the story. Avatar would be a good example of how 3D enhances the movie.  

Furthermore, there is a higher tendency for filmmakers to rely on post-production. In my field visit to a post-production house, the staff said that many filmmakers are used to say, “Let’s correct it in the post.” Though it is a small amount compared to the whole feature film or network television drama budget, it is a relatively large amount to us indeed. I highly agree with my cinematography lecturer that it is better to do it in cameras with filters, lighting and lenses than in post. 

In addition, digital technology has made distribution easier and cheaper. And cinemas have to buy digital projector to incorporate digital films. 

Another important point to take is about storage. We know that film can last for a hundred years, but it is still yet to see how long films in digital form can endure. As many digital formats stored in the 80’s are not compatible and readable nowadays, the format of digital storage is an issue that needs to be solved. Therefore, it is said that a lot of films shot on digital are converted back to film for storage. 

It is interesting that Keanu Reeves said that 5D and 7D are cheap digital video cameras. I know that they are inexpensive compared to cameras like Arri or Red. Sadly, it is still unaffordable to me. And I hope I can have my own 5D or 7D soon. I guess the pro of digital filmmaking is that consumer video cameras are so easily accessible that we can all be filmmakers. As long as we have great stories, it doesn’t matter what we use. 

To conclude, this is a must-watch for film students. It summarized what I have learnt for a year in film school. Ironically, this documentary reminds me of what my editing class lecturer said, “2012 is not the end of the world; it’s the end of film.”