The Pros & Cons Of Film Vs Digital: Featuring Robert Yeoman

INTRO

As I’ve mentioned on this channel before, the cinematographer and director’s choice of photographic medium is an extremely important one in the filmmaking process. There are many options available to DPs, from large format all the way down to shooting with a tiny 8mm negative.

However, perhaps the biggest choice of mediums for productions with a big enough budget is between film and digital capture.

In this video I’ll use some exclusive interview footage of renowned DP Robert Yeoman provided by the cool folks over at Cooke Optics TV to break down some of the pros and cons of shooting on film versus digital.

BASIC COMPARISON

Before we get into the pros and cons of each medium we need to understand exactly what makes film and digital different. There’s a reason that films are called films.The analog medium is made from a photochemical gelatin emulsion. 

When light hits this emulsion for a short period of time, such as 1/50th of a second, it absorbs and imprints those light rays onto the emulsion.

After exposure, the film then needs to be developed by passing it through a combination of chemicals without exposing it to any additional light.This permanently fixes the image and imprints it onto a piece of film. Usually negative film is used, which means that when exposed and developed it imprints an opposite image on the film. Colours are reversed, the darkest parts of the film appear light and the lightest parts appear dark. Later this negative is then turned into a positive. 

However colour reversal films such as Kodak Ektachrome, which capture light as a positive, do exist.  

From the late 1800s up until the early 2000s this remained the dominant medium for capturing and presenting motion pictures. After the 2010s however, digital cinema cameras have become the dominant medium for capturing images.

Digital cinema cameras use the same concept as film cameras, but the film emulsion is replaced with a sensor which captures light in pixels. This information is stored in the form of digital files in formats such as ProRes or RAW. 

CAMERAS

When it comes to choosing motion picture film cameras, there are two go-to companies - Arri and Panavision. There are also a handful of other brands such as Aaton or Moviecam, but they are used less frequently. 

Like most DPs, Robert Yeoman sticks to the big two. He started out using Arri cameras.

“Well I started in 16mm. We used the Arri S and then an Arri SR. I love those cameras. The Arri SR is a great camera. For 35mm, you know, there was the Arri IIC which originally came out, then the Arri III, the BLs a little bit. You know, the big, old, clunky, BLs.”

Early in his feature career, in the late 1980s, Yeoman made the move from Arri over to Panavision. 

“I went into Panavision and I used the Golds, you know all the Panavision cameras for a long time. It was all 35mm. And then I went to Germany with Wes to do Grand Budapest and I just felt in my gut, cause we were using German crew, that we should use the Arris. So we shot Arricam. I love them and they work beautifully.”

After that experience he’s taken a liking to using the Arricam ST and LT cameras when he shoots on film. Although a large portion of his filmography was shot in 35mm, Yeoman has recently started using digital cameras since they’ve become the dominant medium. The high-end digital cinema camera space is currently dominated by Arri, Red and Sony.

Although there is a large range of cameras in the space from the other lower budget brands, such as Canon and Blackmagic.

“My next movie after that was a digital film. I kinda tested different cameras and I just kinda liked the Alexa so I became an Alexa person. So when I shoot movies digitally now I use the Alexa. My last movie was film and we shot Arricam but generally my camera of choice now is the Alexa.”

PROS & CONS

When it comes to making a pros and cons list, one of the biggest pluses for digital comes down to its ease of use. If working in the lower budget realm with fewer resources and time, it can be a great option. 

“I mean, I love both film and digital. You know, digital cameras are great. And for certain things they are probably superior to film. You know, doing a documentary, you know, or if you’re going somewhere where you know you can’t light and there’s very little light. Then you’re probably better off with a digital camera. And they can achieve amazing looks. Most of the movies shot today are digitally shot. Some of them are incredibly beautiful.”

Digital cameras are also able to roll for extended periods of time before a card needs to be changed. Whereas with film, a 400 foot 35mm magazine shooting 4 perf only lasts for about four and a half minutes before the camera needs to be reloaded.

With processing costs it adds up to around $430 for four and a half minutes of footage. This makes film an expensive option, unless directors are disciplined in how they cover scenes. So, while digital gives filmmakers the ability to get more options and variations of takes without the need to cut in between, there’s a case to be made that this style of working also has its down side. 

Digital footage shot in this continuously rolling ’spray and pray' method is usually far less deliberate. 

“The thing about film is there’s a mystery to it. And I think that when you shoot film people are more concentrating. Because it’s valuable and you can hear there’s something going through the camera. I find that people on the set concentrate more. When you’re shooting digitally they tend to just roll the camera and don’t cut, and people’s attention is on their phones. You know, it’s something I try to tell my guys is that if you have to take a text or call then go outside. I don’t want to see your phone on the set. I understand you need to make a call but just take it somewhere else because it’s very distracting to the director and the actors.”

Another practical pro of digital which isn’t always considered is it’s playback capabilities. Digital cinema cameras provide a crystal clear video feed which can be transmitted to a large director or clients monitor at up to 4K resolution. 

This means that directors, DPs and clients can see exactly what footage is being captured on set. This way there are never any unfortunate surprises in the editing room. Although the video tap systems in modern film cameras have greatly increased, the quality of their video output isn’t optimal. This means that the rushes, or raw footage, can only be properly viewed after processing. Usually this occurs the next day, but when shooting in a remote location this may only happen at the end of each week of shooting.

If there’s an issue like a strand of hair on the gate that is recorded over the entire scene, or a close up which is all out of focus, this may only be seen much later. In some cases this could mean reshooting a scene. But with digital these kinds of issues can be quickly identified and corrected on set.  

The final, and probably most important pro, is the look. 

Although colour correction tools have incredible capabilities nowadays, trying to achieve a truly identical filmic look digitally is a tough task. 

“I think that there’s a quality to the film that you can’t achieve digitally. When I shot the Brian Wilson movie, Love & Mercy, of course they budgeted digitally. So I said ‘Listen, this was a movie back in the 60s and 70s and it has to be film.’ I got the director onboard and the I took the next step and said I really want to shoot 16mm for a lot of this old stuff. So we did tests and I showed them to the director and he was onboard with that. He loved it. And so, we had the director on our side and went in and said we want to shoot film. And they were like ’Oh my God’, you know. They fought it tooth and nail but we got our film and I think it has a quality to it which you can’t duplicate digitally. People will argue with me on that I’m sure. I’ve been in movies where I’m like ‘Is this film or is this digital?’ I kind of go back and forth. But I’m rarely fooled. I can usually tell. Like this film I just shot. We shot a lot of black and white film. And it has a quality to it which I don’t think you can do digitally. It has randomness in the grain and it just has a feeling to it that I don’t think digitally you can achieve. There’s a texture and a feeling and a depth to it that the digital camera doesn’t get. Again, I’m not saying anything bad about digital cameras, I love them, they’re wonderful. But there’s something special about film and a film camera.” 

CONCLUSION

When we tally up the results it seems that the digital pros are mainly around its versatility, practicality and ease of use.  Ultimately these reasons pale in comparison to the most important one - the look.

As Yeoman mentions, whether or not the look of 16mm or 35mm can be achieved by digital means is a discussion many have had. 

Personally, I fall on the side that it is possible to almost replicate the film look in the colour grade. But there still remains a certain magical, photochemical randomness  and optical quality to the medium of film which can’t 100% be matched.  

Film certainly isn’t right for each project, far from it. But there do still remain some movies for which shooting in the analogue format perfectly supports the visual way in which the story is told.