Film footage

[Buckle-meister]

Dear all,

Can anyone tell me whether todays movies are shot using good old photographic film on reels, or on 'digital' film?

Cheers

 

[SilverMK3]

It depends on the specific production. More and more are switching to digital film because it is cheaper and much more efficient to work with on set. Things like lighting, color, etc are all very much "what you see is what you get" rather than having to wait for the dailies to be processed, reviewing yesterday's footage, and re-shooting things that didn't work out quite right. It also makes the editing process much cleaner and faster.

As far as the quality of the final product goes, watch Star Wars Episode II or III and tell me that it is not absolutely beautiful. (weak plot notwithstanding )

 

[Buckle-meister]

As far as the quality of the final product goes, watch Star Wars Episode II or III and tell me that it is not absolutely beautiful. (weak plot notwithstanding )

Thanks mate. I agree entirely; Episode I was pretty good I'd say, but II and III:

p.s. Does this mean that digitally shot films are in native High Definition, i.e. 1920x1080? If so, is HD-DVD video from a digitally shot film compressed in the same manner as regular DVD's, or just mapped straight across?

Regards

 

[aarond]

99% of motion pictures are still shot on film. Almost all of network sitcoms and dramas are shot on film.
The digital camera for Star Wars was a Panavision/Sony that shot uncompressed 1920x1080 4/4/4. after post was put onto film at 4k resolution with a laser film recorder. episode II was a mix of film and digital episode III was all digital.
once upon a time in mexico, i think was shot digitally. i'm not sure of any others except low budget movies like open water.

 

[Buckle-meister]

...4/4/4...

Excuse my ignorance, but what's 4/4/4?

Regards

 

[racquetman]

That's not ignorance. It's a good question.

Buckle-meister,

4:4:4 refers to the ratio of the sampling frequencies of the color components of the video signal. Got it? Me either

Read here for a good explanation:

http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Tech-Corner/f-RH-4.2.2-07.10.02.shtml

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

Very few films are shot digitally. Star wars ep. 2 & 3 are probably the only big-budget studio films. Most of it is low-budget independant stuff (Open Water, 28 Days Later, Life and Death in LA, etc etc).

 

[Buckle-meister]

99% of motion pictures are still shot on film...

Very few films are shot digitally...

Something ocurred to me recently. I recalled that after being shot on film, King Kong was scanned at high resolution, frame by frame, so as to place it within the digital domain which then made it significantly easier to be manipulated for the incorporation of special effects.

The obvious question that comes to mind is: why aren't vastly more movies filmed digitally since so many have special effects? In other words, what's the point of using film when you're just going to scan it anyway?

 

[racquetman]

Something ocurred to me recently. I recalled that after being shot on film, King Kong was scanned at high resolution, frame by frame, so as to place it within the digital domain which then made it significantly easier to be manipulated for the incorporation of special effects.

The obvious question that comes to mind is: why aren't vastly more movies filmed digitally since so many have special effects? In other words, what's the point of using film when you're just going to scan it anyway?

My guess is that it is a generational thing. Directors do what they are comfortable with. They grew up watching movies on film and so they are going to use film to shoot their movies. It looks natural to them. I believe it is called being a traditionalist. I read all the time about movies getting simulated film grain added to them in the digital domain - again, the directors must think it doesn't look natural without that grainy look.

I think as a new generation of directors come along you will see more and more films being entirely digital. Remember also that 99% of theaters (or more) are setup to play movies on film. They need to make the transition as well.

 

[Buckle-meister]

...I believe it is called being a traditionalist.

I'm a traditionalist. Sometimes the line between being a traditionalist and a dinosaur is a fine one.

 

[majorloser]

Miami Vice (the movie) was shot in digital. The director talked about it in the extras on the DVD.

 

[racquetman]

I'm a traditionalist. Sometimes the line between being a traditionalist and a dinosaur is a fine one.

I agree completely. There are examples all over the place where the old generation needs to step aside and make way for progress coming through. Get rid of these old schoolers!!

 

[The Dukester]

I read that the reason many have not made the switch is b/c of the price and availability of the camers and also b/c of the amount of cables it takes to run them making them user unfriendly.

 

[allsop4now]

My guess is that it is a generational thing. Directors do what they are comfortable with. They grew up watching movies on film and so they are going to use film to shoot their movies. It looks natural to them. I believe it is called being a traditionalist. [snip]

My guess is that is not as simple as that.

Today the hype (ie marketing bu*lsh*t) is that going digital in some part of the production of a CD/movie automatically makes it good. This is not so.

Actually, at least one artist (Eleanor McEvoy) known for very early adoption of high rez recordings made her latest album "Out There" (very nice, btw) an all-analogue recording released on hybrid SACD.

Morover, this was done in a new all-analogue recording studio: http://www.grangestudios.co.uk/

Boggles your mind for sure

 

[Mudcat]

The obvious question that comes to mind is: why aren't vastly more movies filmed digitally since so many have special effects? In other words, what's the point of using film when you're just going to scan it anyway?

Resolution.

Most big budget films are shot using 70mm film (LOTR et al). Most other films ar shot using 35mm film. These films are then scanned on a special drum scanner at a resolution that far exceeds that of prosumer drum scanners (Imacon). The highest resolution I've heard of is 16 magapixels for a 35mm type digital camera (some medium format digital back are up to 20 mp). The resoloution of a standard 35mm film negative is about 45 magapixels (multiply that by 4 for a 70mm film), you "see" why film is stilll used. The scaning process used by the big budget outfits does not degrade resolution. Check out the extra stuff on the LOTR disks. Somewhere on the the disks of either LOTR 1 or 2 is a discussion of the scanning process Weta used.