Studio

Dan Parsons on Film vs Digital

8/18/2009 at 8:38 AM by Amy Allen

DP Dan Parsons has shot over 100 projects since transitioning from composing to cinematography. His work (reel is above) speaks for itself and he has some interesting thoughts on the film vs digital debate, which he expands on in an interview with Massify.

Could you briefly introduce yourself and tell us a little bit about your experience as a DP?
I grew up in the midwest, and at the age of five my parents decided to get rid of the TV in hopes that creativity would not be stifled in our home. And so, as a child, my "theater" became the radio. It was the means by which I began to cultivate what I believe to be one of my best assets as a cinematographer: the ability to 'see.'

Film wasn't exactly one of the most common career choices in my circle of friends or mentors. In fact, I didn't know anyone who worked in the film industry. In college, I majored in music education and specialized in classical composition. After teaching for a while I 'stumbled upon' an opportunity to compose music for multimedia/commercial projects, and that is where my entrance to the world of visual storytelling began. In 1998 I scored an independent 35mm feature film, and in the process I discovered the world of cinematography. A few years later, in 2002, I attended an eight-week 'crash course' in filmmaking at the New York Film Academy in Manhattan. It was there that my passion for filmmaking was realized, and from that point I have been working full-time as a filmmaker.

At first I assumed (like so many others I have met in this industry) that directing was the path for me; however, once my friends heard I went to NYFA they started asking me to shoot their films. After three years of shooting almost non-stop I found that I was so fulfilled in my work as a cinematographer that I decided I was already doing what I loved and would leave the directing to others. Later, I received my MFA in Film Production with an emphasis in cinematography at Chapman University where I was honored to serve as teaching assistant for Bill Dill, ASC. To date, I have shot over 100 projects including features, shorts, documentaries, commercials, music videos, industrials, and PSAs on every major format from Super 35mm to DV and everything in between. If I had a preference, it would be to shoot on film and finish in the digital realm. However, even though I deeply appreciate film, I have personally chosen to champion developments in digital cinematography and tend to work on the "bleeding edge" with new camera systems as they are developed.

What are your thoughts on film vs digital?
I am looking forward to the day when the whole debate of film vs. digital takes a new direction. However, instead of simply asserting my own opinion here, allow me to offer a series of questions and to use a metaphor borrowing from my musical background in hopes of stirring up the discussion toward that end.

I have often wondered what motion picture audiences would think of film-acquired images if digital imaging had come first. Would the grain structure, the motion blur, the organic judder, and the characteristic soft shoulder inherent in the celluloid medium be lauded, or would these characteristics be labeled simply as artifacts? Would, for instance, the limited dynamic range and sharpness of the digital format be viewed as necessary characteristics to be duplicated or mimicked in film, or would they have been seen, from the beginning, as an artifact to be eliminated by means of research and development. Would film have even emerged at all?

While digital artifacts are an objective, scientific reality, it is not difficult for me to imagine that some of the characteristics filmmakers and viewers appreciate about celluloid are, in fact, merely artifacts of the medium. The fact that each individual has an affinity for a particular image acquisition format and display is hardly debatable; however, the degree to which that preference is innate and the degree to which it has been nurtured or conditioned as part of our viewing experience may be up for debate.

Consider the relationship between the harpsichord and the piano as it stands in contrast with the relationship between film and digital. Music composers understand the inherent differences in these similar instruments and compose for each instrument specifically. However, at present, websites, blogs, and forums largely indicate that filmmakers tend to desire--maybe even expect--film and digital formats to be used interchangeably while at the same time decrying their obvious differences. I wonder if the disconnect has more to do with the fact that the choice of one format over the other seems to have more to do with comfort, familiarity, budget, and/or workflow preferences than it does with the inherent characteristic expression of each medium. In other words, when is the last time you heard a filmmaker say they chose a particular digital format over a particular film stock because they felt that its characteristic curve more accurately expressed their intended visual design idea?

A music composer specifically calls for a piano or a harpsichord for a particular expression of a musical idea. The composer knows that even though both instruments have strings, a keyboard, and can play musical notes, one instrument plucks the strings while the other hammers the strings. Both express musical ideas, but neither instrument is capable of producing a musical expression equal to that of the other. It is not that one instrument is "better" than the other; each is unique with unique properties and a characteristic expression. Each instrument has its own "advantages" based on the design of that instrument and the characteristics implied by that design and its state of development.

As it is with these musical instruments, I would argue, so it is with film and digital. Each medium is capable of expressing visual ideas, but at this present time neither format can produce an expression identical to that of the other. However, the prevailing approach at present among filmmakers and manufacturers appears to be in the direction of developing digital to the point that it replaces film. Perhaps digital will one day mimic film to the degree that the differences are imperceptible, but I am not convinced that such a development is ultimately necessary or that it will herald the end of film as a viable and important vehicle for artistic expression. However, I do believe that this effort to make digital mimic film is quite possibly distracting, limiting, or at very least delaying us from realizing digital's true potential.

In your opinion, what are some of the qualities of a good project?
For my personal preferences, it all starts with a good story. In fact, even though I always prefer great writing, I would say that story transcends the script. From there, it comes down to producers hiring a director with a solid vision for the story being told, and in a perfect world the director instinctively trusts and relies on the department heads to carry out his or her vision--so that we are all making the same movie. Yet, no matter how good the material is and the creative team behind it, at some point a good film comes down to who and what we see on the screen and where we are taken emotionally as the audience. This, I believe, is where solid casting comes in to 'sell' the story in conjunction with the right locations and production design. (As a cinematographer, I am always interested in observing how money is spent in front and behind the lens.) This next statement may surprise my fellow cinematographers. After the film is in the can and the edit is complete, it is sound that makes the picture "look good." Yes, you read that correctly. No matter how beautifully I might photograph a story, if the sound is ill-conceived or poorly executed, the audience will be instantly transported out of the story and "thrown" awkwardly back into their seats in the theater or viewing environment. Our aim, as visual storytellers, is to transport the audience from the viewing environment and into the story and keep them there--at very least--until the credits roll.

Tell us about the most interesting project you have worked on thus far. What lessons did you learn from this?
It is hard for me to say which project I have worked on thus far is most interesting because each project has its own fascinations. However, it is perhaps easier for me to talk about one of my more challenging projects in terms of relaying lessons learned. About a year ago, I was hired to shoot three short films back to back at Culver Studios in Culver City, California--each with a different directing/producing team. The sound stage we worked on was the smallest stage on the lot, the schedule was very tight--six days to shoot all three films, and we didn't have enough room for all of the lighting and grip equipment on the stage because of the simultaneous building that was happening while we were shooting.

Despite all of those factors working against the production, it was one of the most inspiring shoots of my career to date. We didn't have a large crew, but we had the right crew and a producing team that understood how to assemble a creative team and empower them to do what they do best. Communication was highly effective between the different departments, adequate pre-production took place, the art department really understood logistical realities of shooting in such a tight space and were able to creatively solve problems, and there was almost no micromanaging present--which I have observed as one of the chief time wasters on sets. On what could have been a very tense production based on all the stresses present, I observed the crew working with great freedom--each executing his or her responsibilities with a sense of ownership, authority, and purpose. If I could find a way to "bottle" this up and take it with me on every production I would.

What words of advice would you give somebody who wants to do what you do?
Don't wait until you are "good enough" or more educated. Learn how to make mistakes, and, as my mentor and ASC cinematographer, Bill Dill, often says, "If you are going to go down, go down in flames." Shoot every project as if your career depends on it, but never shoot for your reel! While that may sound like counter-intuitive advice, it is important to remember that, as visual storytellers, images serve the story in almost every instance. While there will be times when images will serve as an end in themselves, unless one's work is strictly commercial, that reality is more likely the exception than the rule. Ultimately, if you understand how to use images to tell stories, trust that your work will speak for itself. However, please don't take this piece of advice as a license for poor craftsmanship.

One more thing: don't get caught in the "style trap", thinking that you need to have a style--unless you only want to shoot in that style. Spend time developing your approach rather than perfecting one particular style with the understanding that a good cinematographer never stops learning and is never limited to one "bag of tricks." Styles are cinematic fads which come and go. Your approach can encompass yet transcend styles.

Dan Parsons Crew, Cinematographer