Why is Hollywood resisting? By now, most people agree that digital technology is cheaper; for the struggling filmmaker, using a low-scale digital-camera model can mean a difference of thousands. But some still think the technology falls short esthetically, while others dispute its perceived flexibility: unlike compact digital-photo cameras, digital film equipment can be bulky. And if a director’s not familiar with its workings (each camera responds differently to light), it can be hard to calculate the outcome of a shot. “You have to be confident you know what you’re doing,” says Nic Morris, a British cinematographer who has worked with “Fight Club” director David Fincher. “And many of us are still trying to find our way around.” Still, the most likely reason for the hesitance is that the Scorseses and Spielbergs just don’t care; the general perception is that film still offers a richer image than digital (the 35mm negative carries significantly more information than its digital counterpart), which more than makes up for its higher cost. The savings may matter to young, struggling filmmakers, but not to Hollywood’s elite.
But technology changes fast. And while the film reel is safe from the dustbin for now, it won’t live forever. Sure, some old-school directors scoff at its immature look—it’s too shiny and pristine, they say—but others say a takeover is just around the bend. Fincher recently shot the entirety of “Zodiac” with a digital camera. Mel Gibson did the same with “Apocalypto,” and David Lynch has vowed never to use film again. Virtually all animated features have gone digital, and the technology is only getting better—with post-production editing capabilities becoming easier to tweak and refine. Morris, though, foresees the emergence of a “hybrid system” that melds the esthetic advantages of traditional film with the cost and efficiencies of digital editing technology. And no, you won’t need a split screen to watch it.
