Since the arrival of digital cinematography in the 1980s, filmmakers have engaged in a passionate debate over shooting on digital video versus traditional 35mm film stock. What began as an experiment spearheaded by George Lucas has transformed into an industry standard, with over 80% of major studio films now shot digitally.
However, proponents of 35mm argue celluloid still reigns supreme in visual quality and longevity. As digital technology continues advancing at lightning speed while film stock falls increasingly out of fashion, directors remain divided on which medium better serves the art and craft of moviemaking.
A Brief History of 35mm vs The Rise of Digital
For much of the 20th century, 35mm film stock was the undisputed gold standard for motion picture photography and projection. However, experiments with shooting features on video emerged in the 1980s. Early efforts like 1985‘s Julia and Julia met with critical scorn for their visual quality. But over the next 15 years, steady enhancements made digital cinematography more viable for mainstream film production.
The turning point came in 1999, when George Lucas shot select scenes from Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace in high-definition 24p digital video. Impressed with the results, Lucas shot over two hours of footage on Sony‘s CineAlta HD cameras for 2002‘s Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones, the first major feature filmed entirely digitally.
Lucas continued championing the digital transition with 2005‘s franchise finale Revenge of the Sith. His advocacy gradually convinced other filmmakers like Robert Rodriguez, Michael Mann, and David Fincher to embrace digital cameras. By the early 2010s, productions had access to sophisticated 4K and 6K digital cinema cameras comparable in resolution and dynamic range to 35mm film.
Critical Differences Fueling the Debate
So why does disagreement still linger over 35mm vs digital filmmaking? Several key differences help explain why each format retains loyal advocates.
Cost – In the production stage, film cameras can be cheaper to rent than digital, but 35mm stock and processing is hugely expensive compared to reusable data storage. However, preserving digital films for the long-term can ultimately cost more.
Quality – 35mm boasts unrivaled resolution, dynamic range and organic aesthetics. But modern digital cameras offer incredible clarity and sensitivity, with more convenient playback and editing.
Availability — While film cameras remain accessible, fewer labs process 35mm and film stock manufacturers struggle to stay afloat. Digital cameras are ubiquitous from cheap consumer models to high-end cinema cameras.
These factors make neither format clearly superior across the board. Many top-tier directors simply come down to personal taste. But the numbers reveal an industry steadily abandoning celluloid.
By the Numbers: The Decline of Film & Rise of Digital
The physical medium of motion picture film dominated cinema for over a century before digital formats transformed production and distribution:
- 2013 – Digital cinema surpasses 35mm, with over 90% of theater screens projecting digitally
- 2014 – Over 80% of major studio films shot digitally, up from less than 20% in 2009
- 2018 – Kodak is the last remaining motion picture film manufacturer after Fujifilm ceases production
- 2021 – Only 30 major films shot on 35mm, including blockbusters like No Time to Die
A 2021 study by IHS Markit concluded filmmakers chose digital cameras over 35mm for 98% of films with budgets above $15 million. While celluloid still boasts devotees, the format faces ever-diminishing utilization.
Top Directors Sound Off: Digital vs Film Preferences
Many renowned directors have vocalized their format preferences as the digital transition accelerates. Their opinions illustrate how creative, practical and economic considerations fuel the ongoing debate:
On Team Digital
"Digital is just another brush. It‘s electric, rather than animal hair or bristles." – David Lynch
"I love digital, the ALEXA‘s incredible. It‘s the closest to the human eye perceiving reality." – Guillermo del Toro
"Why would anyone work in film when you can shoot digital? It‘s literally like going from driving a horse and buggy to driving a Ferrari." – Steven Soderbergh
Standing By Film
"To not recognize the superiority of 35mm motion picture film would have to be a form of stupidity." – Quentin Tarantino
"As long as there are still filmmakers alive who remember how good could 35mm look, we‘ll do our best to keep it alive.” – Christopher Nolan
"I‘ve never shot digital. Film is still really important to me. The look is just something I‘m not willing to give up." – Paul Thomas Anderson
Their remarks illustrate the creative concerns shaping cinematographers‘ decision to shoot film or digital, from technological benefits to artistic preferences.
Weighing the Pros and Cons
Comparing the upsides and downfalls spotlights advantages unique to celluloid and digital:
Benefits of Digital Filmmaking
- Lower cost for data storage vs film stock and processing
- Changes can be viewed immediately on set without lab developing time
- Enables extensive visual effects more seamlessly than film
- Filmmakers unrestricted by reload times of film magazines
- Cameras increasingly portable compared to bulkier film counterparts
Downsides of Digital Production
- Preserving and migrating data across new storage technology costly
- Evolving camera resolutions risk work looking outdated as tech advances
- Organic feel of film impossible to reproduce digitally for some
- Can seem "too real" with over-smooth motion and lack of grain
Advantages of 35mm Film
- Unmatched resolution capable of incredible detail with proper exposure
- Dynamic range still wider in film, with heightened contrast and latitude
- Longevity as a medium ensures properly stored celluloid will endure
- Large format film conveys lavish production value
- Maintains beloved filmic aesthetic with saturated colors and pleasing grain
Drawbacks of Shooting on Film
- Expense of cameras, film stock, processing and printing
- Film labs and infrastructure vanishing, putting future in question
- Delay seeing footage until processing is complete
- Heavy cameras limit setups and add complexity to shoots
- Inflexible and wasteful if issues emerge and scenes require retakes
The Image Quality Debate: Film vs Digital
One key question in the discussion lies at the heart of cinema‘s purpose: delivering compelling visuals to the screen. So which looks better, 35mm or digital?
The Case for Film
In pure resolution, a 35mm frame scanned at 4K delivers ~20 megapixels per frame. That outstrips even 8K video in detail. And the expanded dynamic range of film grants greater ability to hold highlight and shadow detail.
But beyond sheer specs, the chemical structure of celluloid gives projected film a lush dimensionality, mesmerizing grain structure and glowing contrast. For many, digital still fails to reproduce these ineffable qualities that define cinema‘s heart-stopping magic.
The Case for Digital
Film may triumph on paper and sentiment, but digital cameras offer key practical advantages. Shooting up to 6K or 8K resolution provides flexibility to crop and stabilize shots in post with no noticeable drop in quality.
Modern video cameras also provide deep dynamic range and impressive low light capabilities thanks to larger, more sensitive sensors. They generate abundant detail with low noise, rich tones and incredible sharpness when paired with the latest high-end cinema lenses.
While perhaps still subtly short of film‘s organic allure, state-of-the-art shooting and projection delivers breathtaking, nuanced images with unprecedented control and consistency.
Preservation Problems for Both Formats
An often overlooked aspect is that the 35mm vs digital debate extends beyond production. Archiving completed projects poses financial, technological and environmental hurdles regardless of format:
Film – Estimates indicate over 90% of all American silent films and 50% of sound era films made before 1950 have vanished forever. Deteriorating organic nitrate film stock endangers works not actively cared for via cost-prohibitive preservation efforts.
Digital – Migrating vast quantities of data across infrastructures requires perpetual upkeep as storage standards evolve. Digital files also degrade over time. A study found 44% of files stored on M-Discs showed signs of data corruption after just one year.
Both approaches face serious risks for preserving cultural artifacts like feature films. For the medium and all its works to survive, active efforts must continually transfer titles forward before formats and supports become obsolete. But which requires greater long-term investment?
How Film & Digital Cinema Stack Up Over Time
In 2007, the Science and Technology Council of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences conducted an in-depth study comparing film and digital preservation and storage. The findings spotlighted major financial incentives still favoring film:
- 4K digital masters cost on average 1,100% more to store than film counterparts
- No current digital medium demonstrated ability to preserve a title for over 100 years, while century-old films still survive on 35mm
- Total expenses for long-term digital storage could exceed $12 million per title
The numbers lead to an uncomfortable truth – digital‘s progress in production failed to spur matching evolution in archival technology. While film requires intensive infrastructure from camera manufacturing to processing plants, repurposing those resources could secure cinema‘s accumulated treasures for the ages more economically than digital solutions (so far).
Refusing to Let Film Fade Away
In the last decade, influential directors and movie studios have noticed celluloid‘s precarious position. Their activism aims to keep film physically available in the 21st century:
- In 2011, Martin Scorsese launched The Film Foundation‘s Film Preservation Project to fund saving beloved films like The Red Shoes from decay
- A coalition of directors convinced studios like Warner Bros. to strike deals ensuring Kodak continued manufacturing 35mm film stock
- Cinematographer Caleb Deschanel‘s Shoot Film Co. works directly with Kodak and Deluxe labs to facilitate small productions utilizing 35mm film
- Quentin Tarantino, Judd Apatow, Christopher Nolan and others convinced Hollywood studios to help pay $15 million in 2014 to support Kodak‘s last-standing 35mm production line in Rochester, NY
Thanks to these efforts, directors retain the option for shooting 35mm film, even if the economics compel their fewer works stand beside a mounting tsunami of digital cinema.
Digital Rules Today, But Can Film Make a Comeback?
So despite 35mm film offering unmatched visuals, most experts see little chance celluloid will retake Hollywood by storm. The affordable flexibility of digital filmmaking conquered the industry in little over a decade. 4K and 5K digital cameras now equal or outstrip 35mm film in essential image quality while costing substantially less to shoot and process.
Still, devotees insist film‘s incomparable magic will prevent it fading away completely. Young filmmakers raised on celluloid‘s wonders continue learning the discipline of shooting economical 35mm. If they and likeminded directors sustain enough production, labs and camera maintenance operations can stay afloat servicing niche demand if not the mainstream tide of projects.
It seems film and digital can peacefully co-exist – one handling the bulk of Hollywood productions, the other sustaining an artisanal approach paralleling independent musicians retaining vinyl records. Much as Quentin Tarantino proclaims 35mm‘s superiority, technological progress means digital likely claimed cinema’s future – even while celluloid‘s past treasures contribute their own immortal brilliance.
The great digital versus film debate constantly yields fresh perspectives worth celebrating. Because for audiences passionate about filmmaking, we all win when gifted directors play to their format‘s strengths to craft transcendent movie magic.
