Arguments about film vs digital are more numerous and more subtle than "which looks better?". It affects everything. Here's what people at the coal-face think. By Matt Aindow
Here's another chance to read our review of the amazing Film Convert. (Note that this was first published in November 2013). Even in a world dominated by pixels and the "new aesthetic" there are a number of us who still love the seemingly undefinable look of celluloid film. Now, you can match it with digital video, very closely. In a major new review of Film Convert, Peter Haas shows how
"...it's perhaps surprising that the Super-8 film format is still – in what we might have expected to be the twilight of its years – quite popular. The popularity of retro-styled web imaging services like Instagram is another instance of what I suspect may be the same trend, and goes some way toward confirming the suspicion that distressed images are now just as fashionable as distressed jeans"
A recent event held at the Getty Research Institute in the USA saw the likes of Christopher Nolan argue the case for the use of film in the digital era, against a backdrop that saw a mere 39 commercial US releases shot on 35mm in 2014.
Can film in the UK make a comeback? Cinelabs International certainly seem to think so, as they have just acquired Bucks Media Services which is one of the few small film labs left in the UK
Digital video can now demonstrably beat film in every way. So why do we keep comparing the two?
ISO ratings made perfect sense in the days of photochemical film but only serve to muddy the waters when it comes to assessing camera performance in the digital age.
You may think we're hammering it a bit with the Sony F65, what with our piece on Belle, and with our forthcoming article on what differentiates the F65 from the F55, but let's be clear about this: we are actually at the point where you can make better films with video than you ever could with celluloid - and that's worth a significant amount of coverage