Filmmaker Magazine has a very long and very in-depth article on the advent of Digital Cinema vs the traditional tried-and-true film workflow. As the article quickly comments, there is no doubt where the industry is headed…eventually. HOW and WHEN are a completely different set of questions.

“As it turns out, the professional systems are probably just as varied and competitive as the prosumer models…amid the confusion of this unavoidable transition from celluloid to digital cinema, the fact remains that good old-fashioned film is still the standard to beat. It is this simple conclusion that colors most professionals’ views on HD and, that said, an interesting conundrum has developed around the issue of whether digital should simply be used to replicate the look of film or be allowed to develop its own attributes and idiosyncrasies.”

Clearly, integration and workflow issues are a major hangup for traditional filmmakers considering the jump to digital cinema. For those with a sizeable budget, the benefits of digital acquisition can be quickly overwhelmed by a mass of unknowns and workflow workarounds. The article notes that David Fincher is one well-known director who has personally taken the time to figure out the issues:

“The fluctuating nature of the technology means that most filmmakers still have to fight to shoot their films on HD. Directors like Steven Soderbergh and Robert Rodriguez can get away with HD because they keep their budgets down. But once budgets start rising to $100 million, or tent-pole status, the resistance is much fiercer. Savides says his hat is off to Fincher for making Zodiac happen in such an unconventional manner: “He’s amazing. I don’t think anybody could’ve done it this way. David had to figure it out on his own, and then present it to the studio. He had to do smaller projects, commercials. He’d been using the Viper, got really used to it. So by the time I stepped in he had gotten the Viper integrated and he’d figured out how to make the camera work. When I got there, 90 percent of the problems had been ironed out. I was just part of the creative solution.â€?

David Fincher is the exception…I believe we will see a new position created on many crews, a “Digital Workflow Specialist”, or “2nd AC/Digital Loader” if you will. Someone like Mike Curtis. Even on smaller digital shoots, knowing how things are going to go down in the field will be essential to keeping under budget and on time. The cruel irony is this…the thought of hiring a workflow analyst really goes against the grain of the “I Do Everything Myself” Indie…and guess who is innovating digital cinema? You guessed it…the independent and small-time filmmakers! But regardless of the initial resistance, I truly believe that the value of an experienced “byte pusher” on set will prove to be well worth the investment as digital cinema progresses. Onward…

“One of the supposed advantages of shooting HD over film is its sensitivity to light. On this point, Savides was skeptical. “The toe [the sensitivity to dim light] of the Viper is extraordinary,â€? he says. “Not as good as the toe in film, though some people will say it is. But it’s not. It will get noisy. It gets very noisy in fact. You cannot do a night interior of a room like you can in film. You have to light everything up and then take it down. That’s disappointing to me, because I like to work in low levels, see things dark, instead of lighting things hot and printing them down. I’d rather see it the way it is, and the Viper doesn’t let you do that. That whole thing about shooting in practical light and not needing to light isn’t really true. Film is just as sensitive if not more so than the Viper.â€?

This is suprising to hear, as it’s been pretty commonly reported that the Viper sees into the dark more efficiently than film. I’d love to hear more comments by those who have shot with both.