Are any Hollywood movies still shot with film stock, or has everyone moved to digital at this point? Aren’t there advantages to using analog versus digital, or is that considered old school?
I’ve edited professionally on an old Steenbeck, and for fun on digital. Film stock is wonderfully satisfying to have your hands on. It’s like driving an MG with stick shift, over driving a Kia with automatic.
You used to be able to tell a difference between film and video tape. Not sure if that’s still the case with film and high quality digital.
Thinking about physical film editing makes me think of Roger Rabbit, and the old cut-and-splice film viewing machine…
Which makes me think about how, in the theatrical release, there was a nasty “pop” in the movie, in Valiant’s office, where the deleted scene (Valiant with a pig’s head) used to be. In the theater, there is a very brief pop of sound and flash of light, where someone didn’t quite clean up the splice.
How the dickens did that get overlooked? Either physically or digitally, why wasn’t that splice clean?
I haven’t seen Roger Rabbit, but could you be thinking of the moment when they change the reels in the theater? (Sometimes that doesn’t go off the way it should.) That’s not part of the editing.
Here’s a webpage from Kodak listing movies that were shot on film, including La La Land, Jackie, Hidden Figures and Fences.
I’ve edited on both Steenbeck and Moviola. Yeah, the tactile experience is great, but with all those clips hanging around, etc.? You can’t beat digital editing for efficiency, flexibility, and ease of organization.
There are still movies shot on film (such as The Force Awakens), but in the past five or ten years, it seems that most are shot on digital.
I researched this question on another board, and out of the top ten films at the box office at that moment, **zero **were shot on film. Only a handful of die-hard film fans are going to shoot on film, and I’m confident that none are going to be shot on film in five years.
For a long time, Kodak was pushing their claim that film was higher resolution than digital - using a bogus standard of the camera negative under optimum conditions. So SMPTE tested film versus digital under real world condition - shooting resolution charts on negative, but then going through the whole chain to a release print. They then showed the same material on the same screen with analog and digital side by side and a 35mm film print - well-projected on great equipment by a pro - had no more resolution than 720P video. 70mm film was roughly equal to 2K digital projection. 4K digital projection smoked all competing formats, and that is the standard in first-run theaters.
It’s over. The hold-outs should get over themselves.
One of the amusing things that makes it hard to tell sometimes, is the way that producers digitally add in “lens effects” to digital films. It’s most noticeable on animations, where they artificially add lens effects, in order to (ironically) enhance the realism of the picture.
We shot a film in 2015 (released in 2016) on super 16. The writer/director/producer decided on film because he wanted the film to look like film.
I’m planning to sell most of my cameras to get an XTR Prod (or XTR Plus, with the right lens). If people decide to dump film cameras, maybe I can aspire to an Xterà. 
It’s going to be like still cameras. There is a bit of a nostalgia rebound at the moment, but good luck finding a lab to develop it. I don’t know a single professional photographer who still shoots film - most of them left it behind with no regret.
That director could have shot digitally and post-processed it to make it look like any film ever marketed.
He considered that. But he’s never found ‘film look’ digital that really looks like film.
I know jj Abrams filmed part of the most recent star wars in 70 mm Imax.
That’s possible. It’s just that it does happen right at the spot where a scene was deleted, so it’s either cause-and-effect or merely a coincidence.
It’s far more noticeable than most other reel-changes: by and large, theaters have got that technology pretty well mastered. (We don’t have to put up with the little flickering circle in the upper corner any longer!)
(P.S. Never seen Roger Rabbit? Brother, do yourself a favor, and see it! Then see it again! Wunnerful, wunnerful movie! Top notch! Aces! A perfect ten! Why, my ol’ pal Bre’r Fox saw it fifty times, because he thought it was Zootopia and couldn’t figure out why Nick Wilde wasn’t in it. Let me tell you…)
Fun fact is that Lucas shot the prequels on digital 2k which means that the originals have been scanned at 4K, and presumably could be rescanned at even high resolutions, where as the prequels can never truly be upscaled to 4k.
I had heard of Spielberg sticking with film but apparentlythere are a few other high profile directors too including Nolan, Tarantino and the two Andersons.
Wes Anderson shot Moonrise Kingdom on super 16. Link.
Thanks everyone. Good commentary. Ignorance fought.
They cling to it, for authenticity and nostalgia’s sake, justifying it with the well-worn phrase “digital’s just not there yet” but really there is nothing inferior about digital. All analogue movies are processed into a DI (Digital Intermediate) anyway, as it gets edited on Avid systems and put through digital visual effects, and then played in cinemas on digital projectors, so it’s effectively unnecessary and often a huge hassle.
I think lens effects are a product of the lens, not the film (or err, digital “film”) used.