Celluloid vs Digital

In preparation for my next video essay I have been watching a lot of behind the scenes and technical commentaries by Paul Thomas Anderson. In these videos he goes at lengths describing the various film stocks he uses in shooting different scenes. For the most part, I have always found this to be a pretentious hippsterism that has no real impact on the final product that could not be achieved by simply editing digital film in post. For example, the "technicolor" look can be achieved by changing the vibrancy and saturation in post production. In this post I am going to explore if there is actual value to PT Anderson talking at lengths about the different film stocks he likes:   

The Advantages of Film 

1: Distinctive Look 

While there is a single "look" of video, film has a variety of different stocks available which can produce interesting distinct looks. Depending on what celluloid  is used, the filmmaker can develop distinct universes. Often, this can be a choice such as the film above using a very vibrant celluloid to connect to the period of the 1960s and display the love story through color. Also, some supporters of celluloid say this is the only way to make skin look natural. 

2: Depth and Width 

Shots made in digital can sometimes have a very shallow depth of field, whereas film allows very deep crisp shots. This makes action scenes in particular far more effective. Additionally, by shooting in 70mm the film can be played on far larger screens without a loss in quality. 

3: Film shows shadows and light far better 

Supposedly, light looks far more natural when shot on film than digital. I cannot see this, but this is the most common defense for film.

The Advantages of Digital

1: It is cost effective and requires less training 

Film is extremely expensive, it requires more base materials, developing, and digital conversion. In comparison digital film just needs an SD card. Additionally, while physical film requires a great deal of time setting up to get it right, digital's low cost allows for experimentation. Beyond costs, a digital film maker can simply press the record button and be filming a colloid filmmaker needs to understand how to work their byzantine machinery. 

2: Digital filmmaking allows for effects and 3-D

Celluloid cannot make 3-D movies as effectively as digital, for most this is not a big deal but it is a factor to keep in mind. The more important allowance of digital for most is the ease of effects. While limited CGI and other effects are available to analogue filmmakers, digital gives far greater access. And similar to the overall lower cost, those effects are far less expensive for digital.

3: Accuracy and control 

Digital film is far more crisp than its physical counterpart, allowing for far greater detail in every shot. This is significant for extreme close ups and any shot in which hair blowing is presented. Also, in digital there is far more control over ISO, color, shutter speed, framerate, everything. While there are analog counterparts for the things I described, not everyone will have access to absolutely everything. The level of control also helps digital be able to improvise. 

Conclusion

While I can understand the advantages of film, most of those advantages can be produced by editing digital film. And the lower cost of digital film makes it the better format for basically everyone who is not operating off a near infinite budget. Digital also allows for improvisation which can make films far more interesting than if they were done absolutely according to plan. 

Work Log

Monday: brainstormed possible video essay topics 

Tuesday: choose a topic- there will be blood and cinematic agreement 

Wednesday: Script prewriting

Thursday: started finding clips

Friday: Scholastic submission stuff