Well, no one died over the holidays so there’s that, but it wouldn’t be the start of a new year without some sort of beef. No, it’s not Quentin Tarantino’s Best Films of the Year list where he inevitably throws some filmmaking colleague under the bus — see his swipe at Nicolas Winding Refn and others in 2012 — but it is related to the “Django Unchained” director.
Tarantino has been extremely vocal about the cinematic industrial complex’s move away from celluloid towards digital technologies. Theaters have largely converted — see the problems that plagued the theatrical project of Christopher Nolan’s celluloid-projected “Interstellar” — and filmmakers and studios have followed suit. And apart from directors like Nolan, Tarantino, Judd Apatow and J.J. Abrams banding together to prevent Kodak from stopping production of film stock the format is having a rough go of hanging on. As Paul Thomas Anderson recently said, even this effort it “still a temporary reprieve. The death notice — there’s a sign on your back that’s saying you’re still gonna get executed — ,” adding, “[And so] more needs to be done [about the potential extinction of the film format].”
Tarantino of course has been the most vociferous, threatening to retire if celluloid goes the way of the dinosaur and calling all digital projection the equivalent of “TV in public” and “the death of cinema as I know it” (though he doesn’t seem to have problems with expanding his films for TV).
“Mr. Turner” director Mike Leigh was asked about Tarantino’s comments in a recent interview with the Toronto Star and of course, the always-blunt filmmaker didn’t hold back.
"That’s bollocks, in a word,” Leigh said (apparently with a “half grin”). “It’s a ludicrous statement, because apart from anything else, it’s a backward-looking statement that is irresponsible. I remember a time in the late ’70s when people said, ‘Cinema is over.’ There are young filmmakers doing all sorts of fantastic things and part of the reason that’s possible is the democratization of the medium because of a new technology, so [Tarantino’s fight] is twaddle.”
Interestingly enough, Leigh’s “Mr. Turner” has been called one of the most gorgeously shot movies of 2014 and is expected to earn itself an Oscar nomination for photography (it made our Best Shots Of 2014 list), but Leigh and his director of cinematography Dick Pope chose to shoot the movie digitally, and it certainly doesn’t look inferior to any movies in 2014. Once again, is it the content that matters or the format? Even filmmakers such as Leigh and Tarantino are obviously divided. Your thoughts? Weigh in below.
this comment on top,is that picture after the nuke,well yes ahh.
Phill whats up man *its that\’s picture at you Mom\’s house,very hott! black Coffee,Uncle *o**i I didn\’t bring up something* Irene Dixon *Baptist knee cap* ssssshhhhh!
Clay . . . .
*latitude and, I should add, exclusive claim to capturing tricky shots on the fly.
I know this is a dead thread but in case Mike sees it: I just rewatched Elevator to the Gallows and was reminded of the many scenes of Jeanne Moreau wandering Paris at night, captured only with available light with the camera in a baby carriage. This was shot 58 years ago. So it seems your championing of digital\’s latitude over film is s bit overstated.
you know *o**** this is *u** very good picture "we have the Boxing gloves" the printed out one in your closet "between" 3 *****u AMEN swear don\’t swear for thousands of years,Irene Dixon she seen the end right there >>>
@Mike
You have no idea where my views come from — your charge that I\’ve read it all on the internet is ridiculous. This charge is as silly and baseless as your citing the posthumous opinion of a dead man who can\’t speak for himself, as digital proponent. There\’s plenty of substance here, but you don\’t want to hear it.
In my opinion, too much is being made of the technical aspects of this issue. You can belch at me all day long about the technical details of either format, and it won\’t make a bit of difference in how I feel. Mainly as an audience member, and partially as an amateur filmmaker (French word for "lover of"), there\’s simply no magic or romance in digital, whether it\’s the capturing of the image, or the projection of it. I love the feeling of sitting in the dark with a room full of people while the image flickers on the screen before me. I love the beautiful richness of a really good print, and I also love the unique experience that an old, pink, scratched up print of some cheesy exploitation flick offers, like when a scene abruptly and comically cuts due to some poor splice job that was done years ago. DCP homogenizes the experience so that I essentially have no real reason to leave the house. Why should I get dressed, fight traffic, and pay extra money when I can have basically the same exact experience in the comfort of my own home? And the studios really wonder why attendance is down at the box office? Meanwhile, when it comes to filmmaking, there\’s something to be said for the limitations that film imposes on the process. It forces everyone to be a lot more engaged. With all the technical considerations that film requires, it activates in people an innate motivation to bring their best to the table, whereas with digital, time and space are cheap and so therefore is the experience and work ethic. Some might tout digital as an entry level format that allows aspiring filmmakers to break into the industry, and that\’s true to some extent. But, I\’d actually say that the restrictions of film are even more important for aspiring directors. Sure, on the one hand, they can do endless takes on digital without having to consider the cost that comes with film. But on the other hand, having endless takes also means that there\’s not really anything on the line, and so everyone is free to goof off or give half-assed performances, from the actors to the crew, because they know they can always just redo it. When you commit to shooting on film, particularly on a low budget film, every foot of film means money, and now you\’ve got a real reason to bring your A-game from the start. Every director just starting out that shoots on film is going to have those moments when you absolutely must nail a scene on the next take because you\’re down to your last few hundred feet for the day and you can\’t afford to screw it up. And it\’s those moments that are the most rewarding, because you put it all on the line, and you can\’t win if there\’s no chance of losing. Plus, even though you might not have as much control over the final result, it\’s so much more satisfying when you shoot on film, not knowing what you\’re going to get, getting everything back from the lab and seeing it for the first time. There\’s really nothing like it. Digital takes all the surprise and happy accidents out of the whole experience, and it takes so much more work in post to get anything close to the texture and depth that inherently exists on film without much work at all. And more often than not, anything you can do with digital that you can\’t do with film is rarely more than a mere novelty. People like to think they\’re "pushing the envelope" with their latest technologies, but in the end, the things that make any film great have been around since the beginning of the medium. Technology doesn\’t make people more creative; if anything, it affords them a chance to be less creative, and not have to work as hard. But hard work is what always pays off, even if you otherwise fail.
James, once again you\’ve failed to raise any substantive point beyond what you\’ve read on the internet. A love of celluloid does not have to mean distain of digital, any more than a love of black and white cinematography means to refusing to watch films shot in color. I truly hope that those directors figure out a way to preserve a vestige of celluloid film production, almost as much as I hope they find a cure for being an ignorant blowhard about it.
There\’s nothing ironic about Christopher Nolan\’s preference for film. It\’s a simple qualitative judgment, the same preference shown by any number of other filmmakers — Scorsese, Spielberg, Tarantino, etc. Perhaps these directors don\’t, in your view, sufficiently appreciate the "science and art of filmmaking" to commit themselves digital as fully as you would wish…. But there clearly are other views of the matter, among highly informed filmmakers. As for Kubrick — you may have no doubts, but I have many. As nobody here is a medium, such speculation is best left alone. If you have to cite the dead to bolster your case, it\’s not looking good.
The shot mounted on a speeding motorcycle at night, and in the rain, the shot of Johansson lit only by the glowing bar of an electric heater, the shot of the deformed man walking naked in a field above a town in predawn light, the shot of Johansson only faintly visible through mist, the shot where Johansson walks through a nightclub, the shot that pans up to snow flakes falling on the lens etc etc, all of which are for all practical purposes impossible to replicate on celluloid. I\’ve shot 35mm anamorphic, I\’ve optically color timed release prints, I\’ve chemically pushed film stock, done bleach bypasses, even cross processed – which is to say I am speaking from a little bit of experience. Nobody is browbeating anyone about digital, or disparaging the beauty of film, or even wondering about reshooting masterpieces from 40 years ago. But if you want to discuss aesthetics it helps to understand the science and art of filmmaking, so that you don\’t come across ill-informed. For example, Army of Shadows may look dark and moody but it certainly wasn\’t filmed in "low light conditions". Color film stock in the 60s was less than half as sensitive as they are today (<200 ISO) meaning they had to do things like shoot day for night (shoot during the day with dark filters to make daytime look like night). Personally I find it ironic that someone like Christopher Nolan is so wedded to celluloid, when his hero Kubrick never stopped pushing the technological boundaries – including building new lenses, and cameras – to bring new kinds of imagery to screen. There is no doubt in my mind that if Kubrick were alive and shooting today he would have embraced digital.
If digital is good enough for Roger Deakins, I suppose it should put to rest the idea that digital cinematography is not up to snuff.
Finally, I can\’t believe it\’s taken me this long to recall Army of Shadows, a low budget film from the 60s that has some of the most beautiful and resonant images ever burned onto film, many of them in extremely low light conditions. Anyone who watches that film and thinks \’geez just think what they could\’ve done with an Alexa\’ would have a screw loose.
As for Under The Skin, the hidden camera scenes speak to an advantage of convenience not aesthetics. The more visually arresting shots in her lair could\’ve been captured by someone like Vittorio Storaro or Vilmos Zsigmond 40 years ago.
Mike, you\’ve outgunned me on the technical front. And as a filmmaker myself, I know the advantages of digital in certain situations: I\’ve shot 2 shorts with only natural light including candles at night which wouldn\’t have been as easy to pull off with film. But as James says, there are other less technically verifiable qualities to film that have an undeniable appeal.
It\’s interesting that Young\’s work on Saints was universally praised, while the Village Voice had this to say about A Most Violent Year: \’Bradford Young\’s faux–Gordon Willis cinematography, suitably shadowy but lacking Willis\’s velvety punch, hints at dark, doom-laden themes that never actually emerge.\’ I\’m pretty certain this critic never looked into what format it was shot on; her eyes just registered a certain lack.
Fear of getting fired and the ease of using multiple cameras say nothing about the comparative quality of digital and film. Nobody is arguing that film is more convenient or easier to shoot. And that was never the argument. If you\’re thrilled with digital, great. But uou can\’t browbeat other people — including, quite possibly, audiences who are choosing to theaters less and less, for the simple reason that they can get digital projection at home — into liking digital.
Correction: the Vision 3 stock is 320 ISO for daylight, not tungsten – which makes it even less flexible in natural light.
Bradford Young\’s work speaks for itself; he knows exactly what he\’s doing on both film and digital. But I think your comment betrays a misunderstanding of the realities of film production. DoPs that underexpose shots don\’t get hired again. If the incident meter says that you don\’t have an exposure, then you can wing it on a hope and a prayer that the lab might be able to do something with the emulsion… or you can go get a light out of the truck. And if you like your job, you\’re going to get the light. Kodak vision 3 stock is rated at 320 ISO (for tungsten), the Alexa is rated at 800 ISO for all light temperatures. That is more than double the sensitivity. Furthermore you can dial the Exposure Index on the Arri all the way up to 3200 ISO and still have 9 stops above and 4 stops below your base exposure. If this sounds too wonkish I\’m sorry, but for anyone actually involved in creating moving images some of the arguments put forward in this comment thread are absurd. Digital looks "flat" "clean" – These are not adjectives that come to mind when I think of films like Zero Dark Thirty, Drive, Bellflower, Melancholia, Winter\’s Bone etc, etc all of which were captured digitally. And to answer your question – there are many shots in Under The Skin that couldn\’t be achieved on film, but the most obvious is the multiple simultaneous angles of Scarlet Johansson driving around the streets of Glasgow interacting with real people. There is no way to hide multiple 35mm cameras in the dash and doors of a transit van, and keep them running for extensive time periods, and have them deal with constantly changing light conditions, let alone do it at night.
Mike, it\’s telling that Bradford Young said he was too timid to try things with shadow on film, not that it was impossible. As gifted as he is, a DP more experienced with film than he might not have had those hesitations. And while I agree that Under The Skin is a stunningly shot film, I\’d like you to point out which shots exactly could not have been captured on film.
Why is it the digital evangelists are so determined that the rest of us love digital? Or insist we\’re all luddites or idiots for not loving it. People have been claiming since the early 1990s that video was "democratizing" filmmaking. Until cast, crew, lighting, locations, food, transportation, etc., are free, please don\’t repeat that argument. The Alexa, even if you can afford the rental, won\’t make you a filmmaker. And certainly won\’t make you theatrically competitive. True, some people actually do prefer the flat, clean look of digital. It\’s shiny! It\’s new! But don\’t berate the rest of us if we\’d much rather be watching a film print.
Leigh is flat-out, bloody wrong. I\’m no fan of Tarantino\’s postmodern junk, but the End of Cinema is fast approaching. Just one example: I went to see "It\’s a Wonderful Life" over the holidays at the historic Michigan Theatre in Ann Arbor, which has 35mm projectors. But they "screened" a DCP version, which looked fairly good, I admit, but nevertheless lacked the depth of field so brilliantly intrinsic to a good 35mm print. The screen looked flat, and the black-and-white gradation simply wasn\’t there, at least not to the trained eye. The studios and the exhibitors are only interested in the bottom line, and have no interest in our film heritage. It will continue to get harder (and more expensive) for theaters to borrow 35mm prints; even worse, audiences will get used to watching digital, and will forget how brilliant, lustrous and sharp film be–and as it was originally projected. Imagine if you could only see a great work of art as a reproduction, and not the real thing. On a basic, intrinsic level, a digital copy is NOT an analog copy, and never will be.
dig! please or theres no dealer or Pulp.uhm mm you know what Book ill be back.
the Alex it was illegal,also if you want to check theres some simple shadow spurs on New Zealand Lamb it comes out perfect intellengence "priceless" this is on the three Jesus Christ Puma AMENS with sink it sid the Alex wit he tickle on the cheese on theritical hypthical was illegal ahh.
Now could someone tell the hipster d-bags who continue to buy vinyl the same damned thing?
It may not be as good as film, but the margins are small, and if it\’s significantly cheaper (and it obviously is) the movie-going public is all the better for it. I agree with Leigh despite the fact that many of the guys trying to keep celluloid alive are my filmmaking heroes. Regardless, they\’re in the storytelling business, not the film business. They didn\’t get these jobs because their skills only work if there\’s a bunch of flammable plastic whizzing through their cameras. It\’s because they can write and string images together. They don\’t need film to do that, and, provided they\’re not ridiculous about all this, their filmmaking will be as powerful through digital means.
XIAN – If it\’s shot digitally, it\’s not a film…
I see where Quentin and co. are coming from when they say "TV in public" etc because it changes the whole art that is FILMmaking…
I\’m not sure I can make sense of your reply James; we are comparing photographs with photographs. But you are being presumptuous to speak for cinephiles. A true lover of cinema would appreciate that the ability to create amazing imagery without the need for a huge centralized infrastructure (like a laboratory) empowers storytellers to find new ways to tell new stories in new places and new ways. They might even think that while we can be nostalgic for an old technology, perhaps the death of celluloid as the default medium of capture is required for cinema to be reborn anew. I think that films have never looked as amazing as they do now, and never been as exciting as an art form as a result of what digital technology offers. My god, did you see Under The Skin? That film showed you imagery you have never seen in a film before, because it was impossible to create. Let go of your prejudices and jump in, the water is fine.
It\’s not a question of which tool is more powerful or "subtle". Film (shot and projected) is different from digital. It has texture, and more. And for at least some viewers, it\’s more engaging and emotionally involving. This says nothing about which format is more "beautiful", and "nuanced shadows" are beside the point. Film is alive in a way that digital simply is not — at least, for some. The Alexa may grand for what is it, but is a photograph "better" than a painting? If you\’re happy with digital — and digital projection — fine. But it\’s not sentiment widely shared among cinephiles.
Ain\’t Them Bodies Saints is a very, very beautiful film, and Bradford Young is a genius, and breakout DoP of this year. Interestingly he shot Selma, and A Most Violent Year on the (digital) Alexa. Here\’s what he has to say:
"The beauty of shooting with the Alexa is how sensitive it is and how it sees into the shadows. I like lots of details in the shadows, which is always a struggle with film. Shadows are so nuanced with the Alexa. Put those two instruments together—the Alexa camera and the Master Anamorphics—and we could light with pretty small fixtures" – Bradford Young in interview with Creativeplanetnetwork.
And here:
"Some of the stuff I was doing with shadows in "A Most Violent Year" are things that I wanted to do in "Ain\’t Them Bodies Saints" but just was a little timid to do, because we were exposing film." – Young in interview on HITfix
Which is what I was attempting to say in my first comment: Digital now has the ability to capture and control subtleties of light that are invisible to photochemical processes. It can still look bad in the hands of an untalented artist (Public Enemies was a shocker), but then so can film. And there are legitimate questions about what parts of celluloid technology and methodology we should retain and especially what archive format is the most robust. But the argument that celluloid itself has "grace and beauty" that digital does not comes across as out of touch with the current state of the art. The artist uses the tools at their disposal to create grace and beauty. And we have reached the point where digital is the more powerful, subtle tool.
Tarantino has acknowledged that digital film-making has allowed for aspiring directors to break into the industry more easily, but just doesn\’t understand why an established filmmaker wouldn\’t want to use celluloid. I remain ambivalent only because, while I understand the argument from the other side, celluloid still looks miles better than digital. The latter has not advanced to that level of beauty on screen–not yet anyway.
notes,why do you *gr\’s always want to see da the ground man *what about con the con man,that\’s a Crack dealer* they want to see ante the beeper guy-some Demon breaking out of him "his chest and body like rob cage and he goes to Mummy" oh,then back into him.
Roger Deakins is entitled to his opinion. Most professional DPs I\’ve read interviews with prefer film (or, at the very least, the option to choose between the 2, based on the particulars of the shoot). There\’s a Cinematographers Roundtable from last year\’s Oscar nominated films in which they basically all gripe about the poor aesthetics of 4K and say they only shoot on digital when there\’s no option.
I never said film was cheaper than digital. The truth is that it\’s not much more expensive, despite what the champions of digital would like us to believe. Besides the high costs of post-production (you can make claims like \’the idea that post production for digital is more expensive than film is simply false\’, but until you produce the figures to prove that I stand by what I have read), rental rates for The RED and the Alexa are so much greater than for 35mm cameras that the cost of film stock is almost offset.
In terms of shooting in low light, one of the most beautifully filmed movies of the past few years, \’Ain\’t Them Bodies Saints\’, was shot on film using only lighting that was naturally occurring in the scene, including lamps and vehicle headlights at night. Watch it and tell me digital could render those images with any more grace and beauty.
As for \’most productions have migrated to digital\’, I can\’t post links but just google \’Productions on Kodak film\’. Film is far, far from dead.
Watching material shot on film and projected on film is not the same as watching material shot on either film or digital, and projected digitally. Even if you can\’t see or appreciate the difference — and that difference can be a tremendous relief, after a string of all-digital features, as in a festival setting — it may well affect consumer willingness to buy tickets for theatrical screenings. Figures may well continue to slide. The analog preference may be entirely accidental — the same way many people, and not just audiophiles, prefer vinyl — but it\’s real.
Irene Dixon-Bobby Place /*,you know the **ise\’s "don\’t tell anyone your scam" very very hott! black ahh.
***st Ty! Allah and his AMEN gave up nothing.Winona Ryder\’s the pass on this "uhm" I was looking at some of my pictures I use some Political back then you know ahh. "you know I really liked Pulp Fiction" the Paragon.
Any technology that convinces Tarantino to stop making films is a winner
I didn\’t know about the 5219 stock, but you\’re essentially saying that the Alexa has the same latitude (better really, if you\’re shooting in low light) as the premium celluloid format, but for a fraction of the price. If latitude is your thing, RED HDRx offers up a system that captures 18 stops. Also the idea that post production for digital is more expensive than film is simply false. If film was cheaper, most productions would be shooting on it, and as it stands the majority have migrated to digital. In terms of the practicalities and aesthetics of film vs digital why don\’t we let nine time Academy Award nominated DP Roger Deakins weigh in:
"Whether I’ll shoot on film again, I don’t know. [Shooting on Digital] gives me a lot more options. It’s got more latitude, it’s got better color rendition. It’s faster. I can immediately see what I’m recording. I can time that image on set with a color-calibrated monitor. That coloring goes through the whole system, so it’s tied with the meta-data of the image. So that goes through the whole post-production chain, so it’s not a case of being in a lab and having to sit and then time a shot on a shot-by-shot because this has already got a control on it that’s set the timing for the shot, you know?" – Roger Deakins, interview with Slash Film.
Now filmmakers have more choice in how they capture their art. They want to shoot on film? Great. Want to shoot digitally? Great. You think David Fincher makes his movies digitally because the studio has told him to? Clearly there are many filmmakers who prefer it. Doesn\’t matter. It\’s all going to be transferred and graded digitally. And to me here\’s the key, it will most likely be projected digitally. And I am ALL for that. I have seen a very tiny handful of celluloid films that have looked great. I could probably count on 2 hands. And I have Seena films projected in showcase theaters here in LA that still have gate weave, focus issues, scratches. Now I know if I go to a good theater, not even a great one, I will see a movie where the image is rock solid and is focused from edge to edge. Of course their\’s bad digital projection. But generally it is a pretty consistently good experience. Those that long for the softness of most projected film, the faded colors from striking a print off what is a second generation down from the IP which is what it will be unless it\’s a showcase print, you are welcome to it.
…Who\’s Mike Leigh?
Nice try, Mike, but not true: Kodak stock 5219 has 14.5 stops of latitude. Also, needing \’millions of dollars of lighting equipment to balance out exposures\’ is one of the most ridiculous things I\’ve ever read. An Arri light kit can be rented from the film co-op a block away from where I\’m typing this for $25/day. A good DP would only need that, a good camera with some nice glass on it, some Vision 3 stock, and their light meter to get some rich, textured images that no digital camera could touch. Rather, it\’s digital that requires massive costs in post-production: storage space for all that RAW footage, computers to process the huge files, and hours spent grading it for it to look at all decent.
Just because you shoot your film on… film, doesn\’t stop it from being a piece of shit. Instellar might look good but if it makes me want to implode in on myself during the three hours, then there\’s a problem.
It\’s people like Fincher and Soderbergh that I appreciate they challenge the medium and tackle their films the correct way and make them look perfect.
Actually by any quantifiable measure (resolution, latitude, color depth) digital surpassed film for image capture a few years ago. For instance – Sony F65 shoots 8k resolution – same as Imax, in a camera a quarter the size and a tenth the cost. Arri Alexa has 14 stops of latitude – the best celluloid film can offer is around 8. The reality is that unless you have access to millions of dollars of lighting equipment to balance out exposures, film looks worse. Don\’t get me wrong – celluloid does have its charms and romance, but digital is allowing for both more freedom and more control. It is opening up new imagery to storytellers. If you want proof, look at the way sky, and subtle changes in atmosphere, especially in low light can be captured now in films such as Upstream Color. Look at what David Fincher does with his subtle precisely controlled low contrast palette. Saying that digital is like "TV in public" is akin to saying that you aren\’t listening to music unless its on vinyl: at best a quaint indulgence, at worst insufferable snobbery.
Well, duh, do you think? It\’s a business. I don\’t mean to be condescending by your agrument only points out the reality of the situation. And just because it\’s not up to standard yet doesn\’t the potential isn\’t there. In the end it\’s only the purists who seem to notice as was the case with digital audio and digital compression
Les, you are wrong on all accounts. Both resolution and latitude of the digital camera sensors has not only caught up with film but surpassed it. They are just different tools to tell stories, neither of them are "wrong".
I don\’t mind Tarantino clinging to film or praising it, but I hate the attitude that he brings with it, that those who use it are frauds and to discount a whole generation is offensive to me. I\’ve shot digital since the start and I wouldn\’t become as talented as I am without it. Plus his \’best of 2013\’ list has at least 6/10 movies were shot digitally. I\’d include it here but indweller doesn\’t let me post links
I get filmmakers and audiences having grievances with movies no longer being shot on film, but the people who decry digital projection as the death of cinema completely escape me. That\’s truly nothing more than complaining about how things aren\’t what they used to
I agree Les. Newer does not equal better.The studios push digital because its cheap.
Edward Herrmann died over the holidays.
QT is perhaps being to Luddite about digital projection, but as far as image capturing, despite the advances, digital still lags behind film in resolution and particularly upside latitude. I have no problem with technology advances if they actually improve the medium, but digital is not yet an actual improvement — it\’s just cheaper, let\’s face it, that\’s the real reason it\’s embraced. It has nothing to do with consistency or what cinematographers think. They are just reacting to what the industry powers decide.
Thank you, Mike Leigh! Finally someone calls the Luddite "film" movement out for what it is, bunk. Making movies has always relied on technology (or we\’d still be fighting for blockbusters in the nickelodeon or zoetrope format, right?), and the technology has advanced. Why some filmmakers cling to celluloid as if it were some magical wonder (it\’s not, it\’s just a reaction of sliver halide to light exposure) instead of embracing the future and bending it to their visionary will is beyond me. They\’re like Amish gentleman goin\’ "Whoa, Nelly," at the crossroads to either the city or the farm, and they\’re willfully choosing the farm. Go figure. Tarantino himself pointed out (rather artfully in "Inglourious Basterds") that we no longer use nitrate film because of its explosive properties, and no one is clinging to that medium… but seriously, digital will only continue to get better, it\’s already to the point where filmmakers that are meticulous and demand what they see is what you get (cinematographers like Jeff Cronenweth are a great example) are moving toward digital for its consistency and their ability to control it… and for many directors and lensers control is what it\’s all about. With film, you prayed the dailies looked good, with digital, you walk away at the end of a day\’s shoot knowing you nailed it and can sleep at night.