The dignified New York Times recently stubbed its immense big toe by publishing a misleading story on digital film technology, quoting George Lucas as wishing film would simply go away. His comments were punctuated with an image of engineers and executives tossing film cans into a trash barrel labeled "obsolete," visually signifying a new digital era in cinematography.

Needless to say, the overblown article received numerous complaints from various corners including the International Cinematographers' Guild, slamming The Times for its inappropriate, inaccurate and misleading comments stating that the digital image proudly surpassed the "old-fashioned" technology of film. Yet the fact remains that a widening arc of 24P commercial productions are being made and the camera is receiving praise, begging the question: does the digital camera really offer cinematographers a true replacement for film?

Lucasfilm, Panavision and Sony conducted expansive tests on the 24P system when it first graced our creative world, establishing key imaging and functional parameters. Synchronous praise resounded from all camps, but the new camera system also possesses various deficiencies compared to the tried-and-trusted traditional 35mm film route.

First those attractive good points. Digital allows an endless variety of special effects, resulting in post-production costs significantly lower than that of film. HD is also a fraction of the cost of film to allow a significantly higher shot ratio. Add the 24P's ability to capture imagery in low light situations using minimal lighting to allow quicker set-up times at less cost, one begins to ask where the problems arise.

In a nutshell, 35mm film has its own unique and overpowering appeal. Able to record twice the image information of digital and 10 times the dynamic range, its delicate contrast and nuances in color reproduction create an individual texture for each film stock. Overall, the tonal range and subtleties far surpass today's digital technology.

Cinematographers constantly under- and over-crank films at different frame rates, aesthetically slowing down or speeding up movement for dramatic or poetic imagery. This is impossible with the 24P system. Selective focus is also an important facet, yet the 24P's system offers expansive depth of field, which is often undesirable. 35mm film and motion picture cameras presently offer what digital technology cannot.

Manne Lindwall, repped by Mekano Film in Stockholm has just completed his first feature using the 24P system and explains some problems encountered. "The B&W viewfinder on the 24P was a big problem for me," recalls Lindwall, referring to its inability to display colors. "When you shoot either 16mm or 35mm, the viewfinder allows you to see through the optics and experience rich colors, so you see the contrast of the colors and 'read' what ends up on the film."

Detail also became too defined for Lindwall but this was soon overcome. "We had to switch off the detail to soften the image and move away from a video look, then sharpen the image with inferno* to give it a film-like quality."

With film capturing 12 million pixels of information as opposed to the digital sensor seizing 2 million, color reproduction was notably poor. "Color rendition on the 24P is like an old Commodore with 256 colors," notes Lindwall. "Skin with a flat light looks good on film, but not on the 24P. You have to be very exact in the exposure."

Respected cinematographer Chris Soos is happy to see the digital realm open up and welcomes an air of experimentation, but he also notices an intriguing problem on set.

"It's so fast to work with," says Soos on digital. "It's actually quicker than the director can think of new ideas to do. That kind of speed or perfection, from a production point of view, actually disturbs the creative process. It's not the answer to anything. It's a hybrid; a digital film alive and ready for any artist to play with."

Without a doubt, digital technology and digital camera systems will drastically improve as time relentlessly moves forward, plausibly offering an equal to 35mm film. It will be a technological wonder to see digital on par with film, but both will always require the fundamentals of filmmaking when the camera rolls regardless of which medium outdoes the other.

"You can talk about the technical subtleties forever, but in the grand scheme of things it doesn't mean anything," says Soos. "The special film, film rate, lens system, 24P digital camera -- they're all just spices on the spice rack. The tools are growing but it doesn't make for a better production. Filmmaking is potentially a camera, talent, good direction, good lighting and good sound. It's a very basic thing."

With several tens of millions of dollars invested in around 100 HD 24P units in North America, we should see at least a year of field tests before there is any commitment to improve the camera, but it should be worth the wait.