Cinema’s technological turf war: What’s better, film or digital?
As an ever-evolving medium, cinema tends to throw up at least one major debate each generation. The current battleground – which has roped many of the industry’s biggest names into its orbit – is the debate over film and digital.
In one corner, the old guard maintains that film is the very essence of the art form and must be protected at all costs to avoid being phased out like so many other technologies before it, whereas the pro-digital crowd contend that it’s faster, easier, cheaper, and more accessible to embrace the advancement.
That’s not to say either party is wrong, especially when Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino, and Christopher Nolan are among celluloid’s most staunch supporters, but the argument over which one is better is rooted largely in both personal preference and circumstance.
Although it’s viewed as the more traditional, classic approach to filmmaking, it can’t be argued that digital is a time-saver. Mechanical and human error were regular by-products of not just shooting on film but editing, too, whereas digital instantly stores every single frame on memory cards, hard drives, and digital banks. Overall, it’s streamlined the process significantly from beginning to end, but the pro-film set feels some of the magic has been lost along the way.
The devotees of celluloid will die on the hill so that the difference between film and digital footage can be spotted instantly, with the latter looking too artificial and manufactured. Cinema is supposed to be an immersive, experiential format, which is why Tarantino, Nolan, and Scorsese – three lifelong and encyclopaedic cinephiles – are adamant they’re never going to change their ways.
Film might be more authentic and favoured by the veteran school of directors, but the majority of its most noted backers are established names. For an aspiring up-and-comer, it’s a lot easier to simply purchase an off-the-shelf digital camera to shoot and edit a feature, eliminating the need for having financial backers and distributors in place without stifling any of their creativity or ambition.
Digital and visual effects go hand-in-hand now that they don’t have to seamlessly blend in with the footage captured on-camera, while editors can now work on multiple sections of a movie instead of laboriously combing through reel after reel to root out the best shot. Digital also allows multiple cameras to shoot from multiple angles as economically as possible, with multiple takes hardly an issue when everything instantly gets backed up.
Professional cameras that shoot photos and videos have been getting more affordable, which opens the door for more people to try their hand at filmmaking, which, in certain cases, allows the next big directorial star to get their foot in the door. There are even models of digital cameras with filters that give the look of old-school film to anybody on the fence. There’s no real answer as to which one is better; it lies entirely in the hands – and mind – of the person dictating the conversation.
Celluloid is nowhere near as prominent as it used to be, with over 90% of modern motion pictures being shot on digital cameras. That doesn’t make it a dying art form, but neither is it the industry standard anymore. Each has its own merits, but unless somebody is in the position of being a Nolan, a Tarantino, or a Scorsese and sticking to their guns in the face of unavoidable change, the current trajectory of cinema has already indicated over the last decade that digital is going to be the preferred method until the next major revolution comes along.
