Cinematographer Robert Elswit about working with George

Thanks carol.  Interesting comment by Roger Deakins at the end of the clip.  I assume he was joking though he seemed rather bored while listening to Elswit discuss digital vs. film technique.  I can’t tell the difference between digital and film techniques on screen.  There are obviously reasons a director uses one over the other but it’s lost on me.  Elswit described digital as a more clinical and homogenized look.   Hmmm.....

Could it be that the equipment needed to work digitally is less cumbersome and ,maybe, less expensive? If you don't have to buy film, transport it and pay to have it developed, that's a money saver, too.

I would think the editing process would be very different, too. Maybe what Elswit meant was that the look was like a photo taken with a film camera as opposed to one taken with a digital camera. It's hard to explain, but there is a difference.

Interesting factoid: Film fell so far out of favor, especially with the up-and-coming and indie filmmakers, that Kodak slowed production to almost nothing, and threatened to stop making it altogether. But a group of directors, led by Steven Spielberg, got together and convinced them to produce a certain amount per year,with the promise that it would be bought.

Film is cumbersome to buy, ship, edit, print, and store. It's also expensive to do each of those things. That's why P&A (Prints and Advertising) adds such a humongous cost to film budgets. But while digital is efficient and looks cleaner, film records a more authentic picture, I think.

Way2Old - I vaguely remember reading something about the Kodak arrangement. I wonder if that carried over into the consumer camera market. I have a couple of really nice 35 mm cameras and it's a real hassle to get film and especially to get it developed, although it's gotten a little easier lately. Digital just isn't the same.