What converted Roger Deakins from digital to film? (2 replies and 1 comment)
Hopefully Roger himself answers this question, or even makes it the topic of one of his podcasts. I have seen him vaguely answer this question but I am curious as to the full answer. What made Roger Deakins completely convert to shooting on digital? I ask because not too long prior to shooting on digital he was interviewed and he mentioned how inferior digital cinematography is. He has mentioned that everything changed with the Alexa, however it didn't seem like he was looking to convert. Was it important he maintain the look of his prior celluloid shot films? If you look at No country for old men it looks like it was shot with the same camera as the one he used for In Time. To my eye there was no quality drop to his work when converting to digital. Something I can say to other DPS who have gone from film to digital.
When I could photograph a film with a digital camera and have it look the way I saw it, that is when I made the change. I am not trying to replicate the look of film. It has nothing to do with that. I don't even believe there is a 'film look'. There is the look I am trying to achieve and that has to do with what is in my head rather than grains in an emulsion or pixels within a sensor. I use film to replicate what I am seeing and I use digital to do the same.
So prior to the release of the Arri Alexa those prior camera such as the RED ONE MX and the SONY CINEALTA didn't get you the look you desired?
Not at all. The Alexa looks more like my eyes. Of course, I am using my eyes to see the images that come from the camera so the whole conversation is limitless spiral into absurdity! Perhaps we all see what we want to see!