Digital Versus Film

There is something that 3-D gives to the picture that takes you into another land and you stay there and it's a good place to be. - Martin Scorsese (source)

I think you have to accept [3d] as just another part of storytelling. - Martin Scorsese (source)

There are certain things that digital doesn't do well – but it's more about the workflow to me. It's about the way that I'm able to make my movie. I like the idea that the first three takes, you're just rehearsing. I like the fact that actors never have to stop in the middle and watch somebody take $1,000 worth of film out the top of a camera and put another $1,000 worth in. I like the fact that there's no guilt, you can just delete stuff. If something's not worth the time that it took for everyone to say it, you can just go beep and it's gone. So I like the plastic nature of how I'm able to work in digital. I like being able to work at really, really low light levels... Also, you have a giant monitor that everybody, from the boom operator to the makeup artist to the actors to the dolly grip – everybody's looking at the same thing: this is the final, release print, it's not going to change. And everyone can see, that shit's out of focus, or her eyelash is coming off in the middle of that take, or she's got a spot on her teeth. You can see the background... Things that you have in the back of your mind to keep a lookout for – so finally, everyone's talking about the same picture. And also, I hate voodoo. I hate the whole thing that you're going to see seven out of eight takes that are out of focus, and somebody's going to say, "But that last one's pretty good." And you can say, "When you're directing your movie, you can get one out of eight takes." No, as a way of working, I prefer having dailies in your lap, rather than waiting to see how much you hate everything you did.
- The Guardian

Who would have dreamed film would die so quickly? The victory of video was quick and merciless. Was it only a few years ago that I was patiently explaining how video would never win over the ancient and familiar method of light projected through celluloid? - Roger Ebert

... film is still, to me, in my opinion, without a doubt, 15 to 20% better than the digital. In its range and its blacks, and the depths of its blacks. When you see this movie, if you see it with a good projector, the colors pop, and I love that...

My protest against digital has been me saying, “What’s going to happen to film?” The result is that Kodak is out of business. That’s a national tragedy. We’ve got to keep making film.
(source)

For the last 10 years, I’ve felt increasing pressure to stop shooting film and start shooting video, but I’ve never understood why. It’s cheaper to work on film, it’s far better looking, it’s the technology that’s been known and understood for a hundred years, and it’s extremely reliable. I think, truthfully, it boils down to the economic interest of manufacturers and [a production] industry that makes more money through change rather than through maintaining the status quo. . . . I’ve just carried on making films in the way that works best and waiting until there’s a good reason to change. But I haven’t seen that reason yet...

I find [3-D] stereoscopic imaging too small scale and intimate in its effect. It’s well suited to video games and other immersive technologies, but if you’re looking for an audience experience, stereoscopic is hard to embrace. I prefer the big canvas, looking up at an enormous screen and at an image that feels larger than life … I feel that in the initial wave to embrace [3-D], that wasn’t considered in the slightest. - DGA

Well, I don’t like digital. It keeps getting better and better, and it looks like it’s eventually going to just overwhelm film. I guess, in the end, it’s really about the people on the screen rather than the delivery method. All movies are starting to look the same, which is a shame. (source)