Student Filmmakers - June 2008 - (Page 46) Commentary Revolution in the Seats Film versus Digital by David K. Irving “Revolution is not a onetime event.” ~Audre Lorde film. I do not have a crystal ball. I cannot say when digital technology will replace film. All signs point that way, but I for one believe that the road to that inevitability is longer than we think. Certainly longer than production, production, post production and distribution – we can safely say that digital technology dominates one of these areas: post-production. It took ten years, and now editing on film has become extinct. But how many filmmakers now have not one, not two, but several versions of their story on hard drives. The ability to shoot 30-to-1 or 50-to-1 is more of a problem than a benefit. What that tells me is, knowing the facility of digital technology is an available forethought, might mean working out the kinks in the story will be given short shrift. Now the filmmakers find themselves in post-production without having fulfilled some of the pre-production requirements: getting the story. Digital technology has made inroads into pre-production with screenplay programs formatting, storyboarding Revolution is quick change, evolution is slow change. As much as we feel the pressure of the digital rage, it is but one of many revolutions in the on-going technological evolution. In our fever to keep up, we often forget that this revolution is being fueled by wholesalers’ marketing schemes to coerce sales. We have seen the CD-ROM world and the dot-com world, both part of this digital grail, fall without grace into a sea of despair. They were quickly replaced by the next wave of technologies; RED, iTunes, YouTube, etc., and there has been no looking back. But what concerns me most, as a member of the film community, is that revolutions compel individuals to take sides. “I’m digital, new technology, zeros and ones rule!” Or, “The look of film is bee-u-tee-ful.” We’re engaged in a battle over whether to go completely digital or retain the film medium. Movies are meant to be seen. And currently, the standard for capturing and projecting movies internationally is via the digital manufacturing industry thinks. I like computers. I like the digital arena for some things. Word processing, games, internet surfing, research and non-linear editing. Where I am cautious is in image capture and distribution. While the general public cannot tell the difference between a film shot or projected on stock or digital, I can. The argument that digital image capture is inexpensive and as a result a director can shoot a lot of material is countered by the fact there are only so many hours in a day in which to make the pages. Light, shadows and color read much better on film. Granted there are situations in which shooting High Def makes sense, especially on an actordriven project, but if one is going to put up millions of dollars to gather a top notch cast and crew to shoot a terrific script, why not use film? The expenses related to High Def shooting, especially in the enhancement process during post, make the medium less of a bargain than one might expect. If a film or digital project is made up of four equally divided stages – pre- and effective budgeting and scheduling software. No computer has yet to write a good screenplay or cast a film. In production and distribution, digital technology is now making effective inroads. Some films have been shot on high-def digital, and some have been projected on digital projectors. But these are not yet industry standard. Most films are shot and projected on 35mm and will be for a while. studentfilmmakers June 2008
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.