Not only has Spielberg sworn to always shoot on film, but every one of his films has been cut on a flatbed or moviola. He and his editor Michael Kahn (every film since CLOSE ENCOUNTERS) have sworn never to go non-linear*.
(*though I suspect THE ADVENTURES OF TIN-TIN may be the exception)
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
You’re right that practically everyone edits digitally now. But I disagree that people who use film are doing it for ‘authenticity and nostalgia’. Film really does have a particular ‘look’. It has grain that I’ve not seen duplicated on digitally-recorded ‘films’. Even slow film has grain. It gives texture to the picture that may be subliminal, but its there.
Another issue is obsolescence. About a dozen years ago I bought a prosumer mini-DV camera. It was a very nice one at the time, but it wasn’t HD. Those cost big bucks. A year later, HD was king. Digital video cameras kept becoming ‘new and improved’. Anyone shooting digitally was in a constant race to have the latest and greatest gear.
By contrast, my Aaton LTR 7 was made in the late-'70s or early-'80s. My LTR 54 was made between 1982 and 1985. I have an Eclair NPR that was made in the late-'60s, too. These are all ‘silent’ cameras, meaning they can be used when recording sound. (i.e., the cameras run very quietly so that they won’t be picked up on the audio recorder.) Newer cameras have more features than mine do; for example, video taps (or improved video taps in the case of the Aatons), timecode, better mechanical design, etc. Not really needed. All motion picture cameras move a piece of film past a gate at 24 frames per second. My friend shot his first feature film on an Eclair NPR, and it looks as good as if it had been shot on 35 mm. We shot his last feature with my Aatons, and his MOS (‘Mit Out Sprechen’ – noisy) Canon Scoopic (modified to Ultra 16 to more easily match the super 16 Aatons). Get a good lens, and use modern film stock, and you’re up to date. The cameras don’t really become obsolete in the way digital cameras do. My friend chased the digital improvements over the years, and then decided to buy an Arriflex SR3 super 16 because he was tired of digital gear becoming obsolete over year or so. And he wants his films to look like film.
Using film is often/usually an artistic choice. And as drewder said, you can always scan film at higher resolution. If the original footage is video, not so much.
Just talked with a landscape photographer who shoots 4x5 to 8x10 sheet film then has them scanned for digital editing and printing. Of course this guy is making wall-sized prints that are remarkably sharp and detailed corner to corner. I agree the typical pro has gone digital long ago…