Mugato: I dunno, guys like Spielberg say they'll always use film.

A dinosaur using film to film a dinosaur movie.

With filmmaking getting "cheaper", we're going to see a lot more crappy independent films. I remember in the years of the 21st century when so many indie films were being shot on DV Cam because it was cheap and affordable. And being that tape was essentially an expendable commodity (no need to worry about sending the film to the lab to be developed), you had a generation of young filmmakers that didn't even bother to light, block, or shoot the scene properly, given that tape is so cheap that they could just shoot multiple takes (and I mean multiple) until they got it right. Essentially, it created a new generation of Stanley Kubricks, with none of the talent.

Say what you will about the advantages of shooting on digital HD video vs. film. Easier and cheaper doesn't always make it better.

It will be digital in the theater no matter what they shoot it on. Hard drives are a shiatload easier to ship and thread up than film.

swaxhog: Mugato: I dunno, guys like Spielberg say they'll always use film.

A dinosaur using film to film a dinosaur movie.

Mind = blown.

I've always figured if I live a long healthy life, I'll be one of the last living people that was ever a professional film projectionist in a movie theater. I'm 30 now, between the ages of 22-25 I cut, spliced, threaded and ran 35mm for a living. All the other guys that did it were old as hell.

Shoots 4k video at 30fps (4096 × 1714, vs HDTV at 1920 x 1082)

Starts at 10 grand.

Yeah, 35mm going bye-bye.

I once saw a "Ben Hur" at the cinema, with a brand new 70mm print. It had the most beautiful picture I have ever seen. Now, my dream is to see "Lawrence of Arabia" with such a setup

Article says for projection in theaters, not for shooting. They will still shoot with celluloid for the "warmth".

The digitally shot movies look digitally shot. I don't know if there is any post-processing that can eliminate that or not.

"Siri, I need a lens flare."

//I know, J.J. Abrams !=James Cameron

The Incredible Sexual Egg: mr0x: Article says for projection in theaters, not for shooting. They will still shoot with celluloid for the "warmth".

The digitally shot movies look digitally shot. I don't know if there is any post-processing that can eliminate that or not.

There are after effects which can enhance how it looks, but you can still tell a scene shot digitally from one shot on film

/Never been able to work with film, it's way too expensive
//If I sound poor, there's a reason for that

The average movie goer will never, ever be able to tell the difference between something shot on 35 and something shot with a good digital cinema camera using the same glass. Industry people? Maybe. At NAB this past year they were showing footage shot side by side between an Alexa and a Arriflex 435 and there was literally no difference except that the Alexa is way easier/cheaper to shoot on. And no, RED, you do not count.

I am sitting in and industry meeting about this right now so getting a kick.. If you own a theatre and don't convert by Jan 2013 your done. Hell if you are not converted by sept 2012 just the cost of getting a 35 m print might just push you out the door.

iamsuburbia: I am sitting in and industry meeting about this right now so getting a kick.. If you own a theatre and don't convert by Jan 2013 your done. Hell if you are not converted by sept 2012 just the cost of getting a 35 m print might just push you out the door.

What does a 90 min movie on 35mm film actually cost? (don't take into account studio fees, franchise fees, etc.)...I'm talking actual film production/delivery costs.

There's little-to-no reason to project film instead of using a digital source. The quality difference between the two mediums is primarily in the production, not the projection. The only reason would be nostalgic for those pretentious film snobs who insist that they appreciate the difference.

Heck, even big-budget productions choose not to shoot film simply because of how much more expensive it is than digital, which has come incredibly far in about 6 years. I work in post production and in the last 2 or 3 years our percentage of film jobs is probably less than 25%. Prior to that, we did about 90% or more. We did exactly one job in 2011 that was shot on film. ONE. We actually shot jewelry digitally this year and it turned out great. That was a big sign of the end of film, for us.

The recession may be to blame more than anything else because film is definitely considered a luxury these days. I feel really bad for the film transfer houses that have become obsolete. Colorists are trying to go digital but the post facilities have little need for such high-priced vendors when they can have their online editors do it with a Lustre. My company got the first Lustre in Dallas late last year and we just got our second one installed last month. That thing was practically booked non-stop the whole year...in the midst of a fairly weak year for our local industry.

Say what you want about how pretty film looks...it's deader than yesterday's communion wine.