Film and Digital as Unique Instruments of Artistic Expression
I have often wondered what motion picture audiences would think of film-acquired images if digital imaging had come first. Would the grain structure, the motion blur, the organic judder, and the characteristic soft shoulder inherent in the celluloid medium be lauded, or would these characteristics be labeled simply as artifacts? Would, for instance, the limited dynamic range and sharpness of the digital format be viewed as necessary characteristics to be duplicated or mimicked in film, or would they have been seen, from the beginning, as an artifact to be eliminated by means of research and development. Would film have even emerged at all?
While digital artifacts are an objective, scientific reality, it is not difficult for me to imagine that some of the characteristics filmmakers and viewers appreciate about celluloid are, in fact, merely artifacts of the medium. The fact that each individual has an affinity for a particular image acquisition format and display is hardly debatable; however, the degree to which that preference is innate and the degree to which it has been nurtured or conditioned as part of our viewing experience may be up for debate.
Consider the relationship between the harpsichord and the piano as it stands in contrast with the relationship between film and digital. Music composers understand the inherent differences in these similar instruments and compose for each instrument specifically. However, at present, websites, blogs, and forums largely indicate that filmmakers tend to desire--maybe even expect--film and digital formats to be used interchangeably while at the same time decrying their obvious differences. I wonder if the disconnect has more to do with the fact that the choice of one format over the other seems to have more to do with comfort, familiarity, budget, and/or workflow preferences than it does with the inherent characteristic expression of each medium. In other words, when is the last time you heard a filmmaker say they chose a particular digital format over a particular film stock because they felt that its characteristic curve more accurately expressed their intended visual design idea?
A music composer specifically calls for a piano or a harpsichord for a particular expression of a musical idea. The composer knows that even though both instruments have strings, a keyboard, and can play musical notes, one instrument plucks the strings while the other hammers the strings. Both express musical ideas, but neither instrument is capable of producing a musical expression equal to that of the other. It is not that one instrument is "better" than the other; each is unique with unique properties and a characteristic expression. Each instrument has its own "advantages" based on the design of that instrument and the characteristics implied by that design and its state of development.
As it is with these musical instruments, I would argue, so it is with film and digital. Each medium is capable of expressing visual ideas, but at this present time neither format can produce an expression identical to that of the other. However, the prevailing approach at present among filmmakers and manufacturers appears to be in the direction of developing digital to the point that it replaces film. Perhaps digital will one day mimic film to the degree that the differences are imperceptible, but I am not convinced that such a development is ultimately necessary or that it will herald the end of film as a viable and important vehicle for artistic expression. However, I do believe that this effort to make digital mimic film is quite possibly distracting, limiting, or at very least delaying us from realizing digital's true potential.
Posted by: Dan Parsons on Oct 22, 2009 at 6:50:44 am
"Jonathan Berger, a professor of music at Stanford University, recently completed a six-year study of his students. Every year he asked new arrivals in his class to listen to the same musical excerpts played in a variety of digital formats, from standard MP3s to high-fidelity uncompressed files, and rate their preferences. Every year, he reports, more and more students preferred the sound of MP3s, particularly for rock music. They've grown accustomed to what Berger calls the percussive sizzle, aka distortion, found in compressed music. To them, that's what music is supposed to sound like."
Hmmm... my post got cut off. Here is the complete quote from Wired.
"Jonathan Berger, a professor of music at Stanford University, recently completed a six-year study of his students. Every year he asked new arrivals in his class to listen to the same musical excerpts played in a variety of digital formats
I think that much of the love for how film looks is based on generations of conditioning of what a movie is supposed to look like. If the tables were turned and HD had been around for 100 years and celluloid was the new kid on the block I think the reactions would be the same. HD's biggest road block isn't that it's not good enough but that it's not exactly like film (which ties into the piano/harpsichord comparison).
"Jonathan Berger, a professor of music at Stanford University, recently completed a six-year study of his students. Every year he asked new arrivals in his class to listen to the same musical excerpts played in a variety of digital formats
Having just re-read the 3D issue of the COW magazine, I think the same can be said of 3D vs 2D imaging. They are not the same thing. If you shoot a feature in 3D it may look different but not necessarily better. It is of course the craft of using 3D appropriately to enhance the story that is the secret.
Likewise, as you have pointed out, use digital or film for a reason, not as a replacement for the other. Software like Magic Bullet allows you to take digital images and make them look more like film - so in that sense film becomes an adjective, like a style of music, as opposed to a format of image capture.
