---
title: "Star Wars: Digital vs Film"
description: "Star Wars: Digital vs Film"
---

[RedShark News - Video technology news and analysis ](https://www.redsharknews.com)

# [Star Wars: Digital vs Film](https://www.redsharknews.com/studio-broadcast/item/3131-star-wars-digital-vs-film)

 Written by [David Shapton](https://www.redsharknews.com/author/david-shapton) | Jan 1, 2016 12:00:00 PM

Star Wars: The Force Awakens

**Regardless of the decision to shoot *Star Wars: The Force Awakens* on film, digital video has come a long ways since the premiere of (sub-HD) *Episodes II* and *III*.  
**

There's been a lot written about the fact that film was used for the current *Star Wars* episode, in an apparently backward step from the bold decision to use digital video for *Episodes II* and *III*.

But most accounts of this decision are somewhat misleading, implying that film was chosen because digital looks so bad in comparison, specifically with those episodes (*II* and *III*) from early in this century.

The problem comes from thinking that digital is digital: the idea that once something's represented in ones and zeros, it's all the same. This is something that we know is manifestly untrue.

### Sub-HD *Star Wars*

The simple fact is that, back then, in 2002, the state of the art in digital cinematography was Sony's F900, which, while it was able to shoot in 24p, used 3:1 compression and only had a native resolution of 1440 x 1080. When it was cropped to the final aspect ratio of 2.35:1, the resulting image was somewhat less than HD. (Read Joe Foster's excellent article on [how George Lucas pioneered the use of Digital Video here](http://redshark.ebizontech.biz/index.php/2019/12/01/how-george-lucas-pioneered-the-use-of-digital-video-in-feature-films-with-the-sony-hdw-f900/).)

It's also fair to assume that the dynamic range wasn't as stellar as more modern cameras like the ARRI Alexa or Sony's own F65.

### A more apt comparison

So while it may be true that film was chosen because of the general negativity around the look of *Episode II*, it's absolutely unfair to use this film as any sort of benchmark of what is available today.

Personally, if I wanted a film look, I'd put a Cooke anamorphic on the front of an ARRI Alexa and be very satisfied with the results. And if you want to see the heights to which digital can aspire, just [look at *Oblivion*, shot with a Sony F65](http://redshark.ebizontech.biz/index.php/2013/04/15/oblivion-maximises-the-benefits-of-shooting-in-4k/).

[View full post](https://www.redsharknews.com/studio-broadcast/item/3131-star-wars-digital-vs-film)

```json
{
  "@context" : "http://schema.org",
  "@type" : "BlogPosting",
  "author" : {
    "@type" : "Person",
    "name" : "David Shapton"
  },
  "dateModified" : "2020-04-22T12:53:35.273Z",
  "datePublished" : "2016-01-01T12:00:00Z",
  "headline" : "Star Wars: Digital vs Film",
  "image" : {
    "@type" : "ImageObject",
    "height" : 366,
    "url" : "https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/6155957/Imported_Blog_Media/e514404a8056d1fd816f3352e8f1c779-1.jpg",
    "width" : 650
  },
  "mainEntityOfPage" : "https://www.redsharknews.com/studio-broadcast/item/3131-star-wars-digital-vs-film",
  "publisher" : {
    "@type" : "Organization",
    "logo" : {
      "@type" : "ImageObject",
      "height" : 60,
      "url" : "/hs/hsstatic/content_shared_assets/static-1.4092/img/default-amp-logo.png",
      "width" : 60
    },
    "name" : "RedShark News"
  }
}
```