The different sensor profiles for colorimetry and gammas don’t really make that much sense to me. Well, maybe for raw video. But for baked video they need a profile for each combo of camera curve + color settings. Nevertheless, this is indeed necessary for any true simulation, so it is the right approach.

Then there is the thing that modern film (modern as “in the last 10 years”) doesn’t really preserve its native colorimetry on its way to theaters, what with the DI and the extensive grading most movies receive. In this respect, matching film stock colors is more of a curious toy, than a practical thing. For digital only projects, that is. For mixed film/digital it can be useful for matching different sources before grading, but then again – there are LUTs for this anyway.

As for the ideology behind such tools – I am all for having the options. Smart use, or no use is then a matter of taste and good measure.

The Master and The Dark Knight Rises form an interesting trend with their larger format source. Cinematographers with affinity to shooting film are looking for something that can set their image apart in technical terms. Something that equals (or betters) the high-end S35+ sized digital sensor. Very much like how shooting medium format for stills is for many photographers the way to catch up with the definition and high megapixel detail of APS-C (or larger) sensors.

I have mixed feeling about such tools. On the one hand it could be argued they don’t do anything that couldn’t be done otherwise using software like After Effects. On the other I applaud the effort to help create a more ‘cinematic’ the definition of which is going to be hotly debated for some time to come. Having just watched ‘The Master’ (both shot AND projected in 70mm) I hope we never see the day when everything becomes digital.

It is certainly evolving all the time. Future generations may very well consider film technically inadequate, the same way some people find black & white + mono sound unwatchable. Appreciating the past is often an acquired taste and requires a conscious effort to first get to know it, and just then to start liking it.

It is also intresting how visible grain is similar to motion blur and strobing, in the sense that technically they all are defects. But they are defects that are deeply imprinted in the notion of what is filmic. At least for some generations. On the other hand, being defects, they are understandably under some pressure to get disposed of.

Thanks for the heads up. I am interested in Side by Side since I saw the trailer, but I haven’t got the chance to see it yet.

I think after awhile our definition of what constitutes the “film look” will evolve. Although the debate is still pretty much on going from what I saw in the documentary Side by Side. Which I think you would like if you haven’t already.

Choice is about to disappear soon, with Fuji getting out of motion picture film business and Kodak in turmoil. But yes, it is really mostly a matter of philosophy and aesthetics. In terms of convenience digital is way ahead, and recently also taking the lead technical quality-wise.

Philosophy wise, I don’t think its a matter of inferiority but rather aesthetic choice these days. But like anything else, change is inevitable and soon the collective conscious will probably err on the side of digital. Although, I hope these choices are only made in favor of the narrative.

A true simulation of film’s randomness would require sensor photosites varying their positions. Then there is the purely philosophical question whether the current clean, ordered and formal digital aesthetic is inferior, or simply something we need to embrace and adjust to.

As you mentioned sensor noise tends to look more organic these days. But it would be interesting if there is a way to capture light digitally the same way film stock does, instead of trying to mimic it later in post. I think Fuji is on the right path. On the other hand, people in the market for such a camera could afford to shoot film anyway.