20/11/2025
Dusted off this micro essay on the Film vs. Digital topic. Circa. early 2000s. Do these ideas hold up decades later?
The Harpsichord, the Piano, Film, and Digital
For years, digital acquisition has been pushed to behave like celluloid—as though film is the standard and digital is the understudy. But could this mindset be keeping us from discovering what digital actually is and what it is capable of expressing?
Composers don’t call for specific instruments by pretending they’re the same. They specify each instrument according to its unique voice and expression. A harpsichord plucks. A piano strikes. Same keys, same notes, wildly different mechanics and musical expression. Neither is superior—they’re just different tools for expressing unique ideas. One isn’t a flawed attempt at the other; they are distinct instruments with characteristic expressions.
Film and digital are also different instruments. While they are both fully capable of expressing visual ideas, each has a signature the other can’t naturally produce. Matching one to the other requires resource-heavy intervention—and, arguably, misses the point.
In our efforts to make digital indistinguishable from film, are we slowing down the moment when digital finally and fully becomes its own instrument? Are we so obsessed with perfect imitation that we’re delaying true innovation?
Imitation is not a prerequisite for innovation. And it stands to reason that digital is capable of expressions we have yet to behold. And so we should consider: in our race to make digital indistinguishable from film, are we slowing down the moment when digital finally becomes its own instrument? Are we so obsessed with perfect imitation that we’re delaying true innovation?