Digital vs. Film Cinematography

[Livewire]

At the request of Mr. Cat Dog!

Going by the Discussion started in The Hobbit thread, how do you feel about the increased use of digital editing and cinematography for films, as opposed to making a movie on a traditional film? With digital, you can have superior sound, editing, and resolution quality. Digital apparati are also more mobile and compact than traditional cameras and such.

Personally, I think making a movie via the old way, with actual film, is the way to go because well, it's film. You're making a movie. It's synonymous. And I like Directors & films that use digital effects when appropriate and don't mask poor film making with Digital & 3D effects.

What do you think?

[LilJz1234]

I for one also prefer actual films, but it also makes it easier for them to edit and whatnot digitally. But for special effects, I'm not really too fond of the newer ones. Like CGI and all that. I prefer when there's something in front of the camera like models, stop motion and animatronics. It makes it look more real than a computerized effect. I just think CGI just looks kinda bad most of the time.

And hey, why not make a club for movie fans? :D

[TRIFORCE89]

(Should I copy/paste what I put in the Hobbit thread? XD Nah.)

Pretty sure something can be shot on film and still be edited digitally or have digital effects. Those are definite pluses for digital.

I find digital a bit sterile. Film is warm and has life to it. When I play video games, I turn on the film grain filter if its offered. Granted, that's artificial, but it simply looks more cinematic to me.

In good hands though, digital can look phenomenal. Look at Skyfall for instance