Movies are getting darker, literally

Come to the dark side, we’re filming digitally. (Photo: Vox)

It’s 2002, you’re going to watch Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man in the theaters. It’s great, you have no complaints. Fifteen years later, you’re watching Marvel’s iteration of your neighborhood hero. Still great but every now and then, you have to squint a little to make out certain faces and details.

Both are great films, but also products of their time—literally. While the latter movie was shot digitally, the former was shot on 35mm film in Kodak Vision 2383.

It’s not just you, films are darker than ever, seemingly captured with little to no light. And we have the technological breakthroughs of filmmaking and cinematography to thank for the movies and TV shows that embrace their dark side.

It was a dark and stormy night

There seems to be an ongoing trend in movies and TV: everything has gotten extremely dark, and for some audience members, too dark to even see. As popular content leans into grittier and darker tones, the visuals often reflect that. Think back to your on-screen: Batman, Stranger Things, and Game of Thrones, to name a few.

But it’s not just about the themes. We’re seeing a global shift from shooting on film and moving to digital cinematography. Of the movies released in 2018, 91% of them used the digital format, while only 14% solely used film. And as a result, the way scenes are lit also changes drastically.

First, we need to understand how using film cameras for motion pictures works. This craft’s star is in the film stock, a transparent strip base coated on one side containing tiny light-sensitive crystals. The size of these crystals can determine the sensitivity, resolution, and contrast of the film. Filmmakers typically choose film stocks based on the sensitivity of the stock, the color balance, the effect achieved when shot under daylight or artificial tungsten light, and the overall look. 

However, using film for motion pictures posed a couple of lighting challenges. For one thing, filmmakers that use film stocks have to predetermine how bright or dark they want the outcome of their motion picture to be. But what if weather conditions or current resources change how shadows are displayed? Not only do you need experience with film stocks but also a big enough budget to buy more film stocks as the project goes (which is what most filmmakers do).

Besides buying film stocks, filmmakers have to measure how much light there is with a light meter and set their exposure. They do this for each new taken and adjust accordingly depending on whether the scene was captured in daylight or artificial tungsten light.

Shooting low-lit scenes on film is also risky. Back when digital filming didn’t exist, there weren’t monitors that showed exactly what a shot was going to look like. There are video taps for film cameras but they’re mostly a reference for framing, not lighting. Then when you shoot dark scenes on film, there isn’t much room to correct them later as the video information in the darkest parts of the image is essentially lost. When you try to brighten up the frame, the overall image just becomes grainier. 

Maybe that’s why dark movies shot on film linger in our minds: they’re eerie, risky, and rare for their time. I guess that explains why the likes of The Godfather, Pan’s Labyrinth, or The Shining remain in my mind rent-free.

Shooting digitally virtually removes all these barriers. Digital cameras are more sensitive to light as they shoot in log format; this means that they have sensors that preserve information in highlights and shadows. Using digital cameras is less risky, costs less,  requires less of a learning curve, and—to put it quite simply—makes filmmaking more efficient and accessible.

Analog vs. digital

We all know that directors like Quentin Tarantino, Christopher Nolan, and Wes Anderson shoot exclusively in film. But I was surprised to learn that award-winning TV shows like Euphoria and The Walking Dead were also captured on film—with both of these shows known for their dark and heavy themes.

So why are people still shooting in film? Out of nostalgia? Tech experts and analog diehards make a compelling case for making motion pictures in film, especially in today’s age.

Digital cameras can help bypass the lighting challenges for analog movies. By having a digital camera on set, filmmakers can double-check their exposure with it. With that, they can set the aperture of their film camera and add or subtract any necessary filters to cut down or increase the amount of light that enters the camera.

And the argument that film movies are not high-definition has long been debunked. After the film rolls pass through a combination of chemicals for development, they are converted to a digital format that can be worked in the same way as files from a digital camera. They are either run through a telecine, a machine that captures and records them as an HD video file in real-time, or scanned up to 15 individual frames per second up to 4K resolution and saved as a digital .DPX file.

The original data from .DPX files can be perfectly reconstructed from the compressed data without losing any information, the same way .RAW files are captured by digital cameras and can contain a huge amount of color information. These files are huge due to their high quality, with 24 minutes of footage amounting to one terabyte.

Nolan debunks the assumption that there is no growth in analog. “I am not committed to film out of nostalgia. I am in favor of any kind of technical innovation but it needs to exceed what has gone before and so far nothing has exceeded anything that's come before,” Nolan asserted.

Tarantino supports this notion and claims that the arduous work that comes with shooting on film builds credibility. “In a world where you can do anything, nothing means anything,” Tarantino said in an interview. 

For these directors, if shooting digitally makes every improbable scene possible, then what’s the point? Unlimited takes, editing in post, and digital aids can make a great movie but not necessarily make for a great director. The wonderment that comes with film is the knowledge that technologically speaking, achieving beautifully dark shots shouldn’t be possible on film, but these directors make it work.

On the other hand, digital filming makes videography more accessible. You don’t need to burn through savings to film with a digital camera or your smartphone. And props and effects the budget filmmaker wouldn’t have, they could edit in during post.

Digital filming provides an accessible entryway into the craft and removes the barriers that would intimidate an amateur enthusiast or an indie filmmaker who was primed to believe that there is no money in Philippine cinema.

Once again, it’s the age-old question as to whether automating artistic creation robs it of its creativity and novelty. At the end of the day, the goal of tech is to democratize and optimize tasks, and even crafts. If that means an aspiring filmmaker can make it big with their smartphone and a dream, then who are we to gatekeep art?