Hollywood insiders are aware of a battle that has been brewing for quite sometime now: the technology to capture the image has two camps- film and digital and each are perhaps overwhelming the other. Film is photomchemical and the method by which cinema has been created and projected for all these years (since the late 1890). Digital cameras are new on the block and because they can do everything a film camera can but with less production costs, they are vying to be the medium every director chooses. Keanu Reeves questions industry insiders from top directors and cinematographers and gets a honest non biased overview. This is a good watch for anyone interested in the technical and "behind the camera" scenes of making of film and television. The documentary is precise and educative.

The documentary investigates the history, process and workflow of both digital and photochemical film creation.

Keanu Reeves says that digital "could" replace traditional film. However, by 2012, I am fairly confident that there was no "could" -- digital had become the more common way to shoot a film. (Although, this may be more on the low budget end -- they offer plenty of big name films from the last five years that are still on film.)

I appreciated learning that digital cameras not only affect the finished product, but actually the process, too -- even the actors. The natural breaks of switching rolls every ten or so minutes are removed, which results in Robert Downey's mason jars of urine.

The rise of CGI is covered, which is both a good and bad thing. Bad CGI is far too common and a weak replacement for practical effects. But good CGI is a major boon, and as the industry progresses, this could result in some impressive things.

Digital as a whole is growing and evolving -- we learn of David Fincher's role of making cameras lighter during "Social Network". We learn that "Slumdog Millionaire" was the first digital film to earn an Oscar for cinematography (but certainly not the last). George Lucas seems overly enthusiastic about the rise of the digital movie, and we all know how he has abused computer technology. But his overall point is right -- we are at the beginning of a new technology, and only by jumping aboard ship will it get better.

I do love that everyone thinks 3-D will burn out, as it is a joke or a gimmick for money. Could not agree more.

"Side By Side" is a documentary about the transition from film to digital cameras for movies. It goes chronologically discussing all the many innovations and seminal films on digital as well as consists of zillions of interviews with people in the industry.

I really respect all the work that went into making "Side By Side". Keanu Reeves interviews many of the very top filmmakers in this documentary. Just read through the list of people appearing in the film--you are bound to be amazed. However, at the same time, I also think it's a film that most simply won't care about and wouldn't watch in the first place. The average viewer doesn't care whether or not their film they are watching is made on film or digital--they just want to enjoy the movie. So, when these folks wax philosophical about their craft it might be interesting to film students or compulsive film buffs like myself--but otherwise, who cares?! This does NOT mean it's a bad film--it's terrific and insightful BUT it's also probably something best seen by film students and young filmmakers.