Are movies shot and projected in film?

montezuma · 12-24-2009, 06:58 PM

I'm very confused. I'm pretty sure that movies are shot in film. If they are then do they have to make many copies of the original film reel to show to theaters? Do theaters still use film projectors? How do they add computer images to a movie? Do they scan the film to make it into a digital image and then add the images and reshoot it to make it film again? This is all very confusing. It seems that shooting digital would be easier and would be higher quality because if film is still used they would have to convert it later for DVD or for special effect purposes. I've been thinking about this for awhile and haven't been able to make sense of it, answers are appreciated. Sorry about all the questions, but this is really confusing to me.

Adam · 12-24-2009, 07:19 PM

I think that most recording is computerized nowadays, and as of a few years ago, movie theaters have started switching from film movies to digital files. Don't quote me on that, though, as I haven't done much research on the subject.

Vylen · 12-24-2009, 07:38 PM

Are most movies still shot on 35mm film? - Yahoo! Answers

According to that question posted 8 months ago, film makers are still using film... albeit large format for HD.

the migration to digital has been slow afaik... since 2005 the majority of movies were shot using film... but digital use has been slowly increasing..

of course, film projection is still in use as well - upgrading equipment to use digital projectors and such is costly when you've already got good analog equipment at hand...

as a side note, some cinemas in asia have been known to use PS3's to show blu-ray film - haha

as for your question regarding computer imagery - yes.. they process the film and scan it into their systems... then they're reprinted onto film rolls..

it might sound inefficient but its been an industry standard for decades now... no need to fix what aint broke :P

Mike Cash · 12-25-2009, 05:29 AM

I wonder if movies shot specifically for the straight-to-DVD market (no theater distribution) are shot in digital? The need to economize would almost seem to dictate it.

joodiespost · 12-26-2009, 01:28 AM

Originally posted by Adam

I think that most recording is computerized nowadays, and as of a few years ago, movie theaters have started switching from film movies to digital files. Don't quote me on that, though, as I haven't done much research on the subject.

no you're right. One of my buddies work at a theater and told me that the switch to digital has been made. Makes the job there heck of a lot easier without the hassles of all the rolls of films and etc.

melander · 12-26-2009, 06:13 AM

District 9 was shot using a Red one digital camera. Same with Gamer.

I still prefere the looks of film when I go to the cinema but when I watch movies on bluray and my pioneer 5090 I prefere movies shot directly on digital.

VF-19 · 12-26-2009, 07:53 AM

I don't mind the difference between film and digital, but what I don't like, is when they "restore" the film and remove ALL the grain... Turns it into a pastel picture.

Case in point. Aliens was shot with a high grain film (although, Cameron claims that most films made from that particular stock are naturally grainy), and it looks great. The grain adds to the grit of the picture. Take that out, and it suffers from it.

B Grace · 12-26-2009, 09:51 AM

I think it's interesting that just when home playback devices can fairly accurately reproduce the images projected from film in a theater with the 24p playback options on Blu-Ray the digital recording means now available for motion pictures makes the traditional film frame rate less important. I found the 24p capability in Blu-Ray to be so impressive I made it number one on my shopping list and I bought my Blu-Ray player first, and the frame rate interpolation software in current TV's is very important. I'm still waiting on purchasing a nice TV because the minimum LCD-panel TV I want is just now available so it's very expensive.

All said, there are independent film makers, directors, motion picture photographers and videographers that still hold out for the look of film but I think they too with time will switch to digital especially as more frame rate options become available. There is no reason grain patterns can't be replicated in digital.

wallyb · 12-26-2009, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by B Grace

I think it's interesting that just when home playback devices can fairly accurately reproduce the images projected from film in a theater with the 24p playback options on Blu-Ray the digital recording means now available for motion pictures makes the traditional film frame rate less important. I found the 24p capability in Blu-Ray to be so impressive I made it number one on my shopping list and I bought my Blu-Ray player first, and the frame rate interpolation software in current TV's is very important. I'm still waiting on purchasing a nice TV because the minimum LCD-panel TV I want is just now available so it's very expensive.

Even if you're playing a film at 24 frames per second with a blu-ray disc, 99.9% of TV sets are not going to display at that frequency, so there's no point in being so interested in it. Unless you go out and buy an LCD TV with a 24hz mode and all that I can see are silly-overpriced for such an unimportant feature.

VF-19 · 12-26-2009, 04:29 PM

My TV is a 60hz plasma, but when I switch over to a blu-ray, the little info box says "1080p 24hz" instead of "1080p 60hz".

2001 looks so freaking pretty. Especially the stargate sequence. Shame, however, that 1080p is still "low resolution" compared to what a 35 mm frame (or in 2001's case 70mm frame) of film is capable of.

res3567 · 12-26-2009, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by VF-19

I don't mind the difference between film and digital, but what I don't like, is when they "restore" the film and remove ALL the grain... Turns it into a pastel picture.

Case in point. Aliens was shot with a high grain film (although, Cameron claims that most films made from that particular stock are naturally grainy), and it looks great. The grain adds to the grit of the picture. Take that out, and it suffers from it.

You know that is very interesting........ I never would have known....... I was not into photography back then...... But when you compare it to AVP R, I see ONE of the reasons the Aliens film did so well; the latter had HORRIBLE low light detail.... even one of the few scenes witch had sunlight...... now that is BAD!!!!!

Das Boot · 12-27-2009, 08:13 PM

Probably the biggest feature never talked in modern televisions is 3:2 pulldown. What I mean is the abilty to detect a film frame rate in 1080i and pull it to 1080p 24Hz. There are televisions that do this and it is the only way you will ever watch broadcasted 1080p in the US. This 120Hz and 240Hz stuff is really the same as megapixel glam in camera features... just numbers.

12-24-2009, 06:58 PM	#1
montezuma Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: New Jersey Posts: 59	Are movies shot and projected in film? I'm very confused. I'm pretty sure that movies are shot in film. If they are then do they have to make many copies of the original film reel to show to theaters? Do theaters still use film projectors? How do they add computer images to a movie? Do they scan the film to make it into a digital image and then add the images and reshoot it to make it film again? This is all very confusing. It seems that shooting digital would be easier and would be higher quality because if film is still used they would have to convert it later for DVD or for special effect purposes. I've been thinking about this for awhile and haven't been able to make sense of it, answers are appreciated. Sorry about all the questions, but this is really confusing to me.

12-24-2009, 07:19 PM	#2
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,594	I think that most recording is computerized nowadays, and as of a few years ago, movie theaters have started switching from film movies to digital files. Don't quote me on that, though, as I haven't done much research on the subject. Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Advice requested re taking digital shots of projected slides...	beaumont	Photographic Technique	9	01-22-2011 08:41 PM
Shot my First short film on the k-x	shendopen	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	15	10-27-2010 04:27 PM
Another film shot	Ole	Post Your Photos!	3	09-20-2009 11:27 AM
It's been over 20 years since I shot B&W film...	Fritz	Post Your Photos!	8	05-19-2008 02:51 PM
How long does shot film last?	MJB DIGITAL	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	13	03-13-2008 12:20 AM

12-24-2009, 07:38 PM	#3
Vylen Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,262	Are most movies still shot on 35mm film? - Yahoo! Answers According to that question posted 8 months ago, film makers are still using film... albeit large format for HD. the migration to digital has been slow afaik... since 2005 the majority of movies were shot using film... but digital use has been slowly increasing.. of course, film projection is still in use as well - upgrading equipment to use digital projectors and such is costly when you've already got good analog equipment at hand... as a side note, some cinemas in asia have been known to use PS3's to show blu-ray film - haha as for your question regarding computer imagery - yes.. they process the film and scan it into their systems... then they're reprinted onto film rolls.. it might sound inefficient but its been an industry standard for decades now... no need to fix what aint broke :P

12-25-2009, 05:29 AM	#4
Mike Cash Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,950	I wonder if movies shot specifically for the straight-to-DVD market (no theater distribution) are shot in digital? The need to economize would almost seem to dictate it.

12-26-2009, 01:28 AM	#5
joodiespost Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 336	Originally posted by Adam I think that most recording is computerized nowadays, and as of a few years ago, movie theaters have started switching from film movies to digital files. Don't quote me on that, though, as I haven't done much research on the subject. no you're right. One of my buddies work at a theater and told me that the switch to digital has been made. Makes the job there heck of a lot easier without the hassles of all the rolls of films and etc.

12-26-2009, 06:13 AM	#6
melander Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Sweden, Umea Posts: 876	District 9 was shot using a Red one digital camera. Same with Gamer. I still prefere the looks of film when I go to the cinema but when I watch movies on bluray and my pioneer 5090 I prefere movies shot directly on digital.

12-26-2009, 07:53 AM	#7
VF-19 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Ottawa Posts: 364	I don't mind the difference between film and digital, but what I don't like, is when they "restore" the film and remove ALL the grain... Turns it into a pastel picture. Case in point. Aliens was shot with a high grain film (although, Cameron claims that most films made from that particular stock are naturally grainy), and it looks great. The grain adds to the grit of the picture. Take that out, and it suffers from it.

12-26-2009, 09:51 AM	#8
B Grace Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Western Missouri Posts: 429	I think it's interesting that just when home playback devices can fairly accurately reproduce the images projected from film in a theater with the 24p playback options on Blu-Ray the digital recording means now available for motion pictures makes the traditional film frame rate less important. I found the 24p capability in Blu-Ray to be so impressive I made it number one on my shopping list and I bought my Blu-Ray player first, and the frame rate interpolation software in current TV's is very important. I'm still waiting on purchasing a nice TV because the minimum LCD-panel TV I want is just now available so it's very expensive. All said, there are independent film makers, directors, motion picture photographers and videographers that still hold out for the look of film but I think they too with time will switch to digital especially as more frame rate options become available. There is no reason grain patterns can't be replicated in digital.

12-26-2009, 10:38 AM	#9
wallyb Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: The Untied States Photos: Albums Posts: 1,881	Originally posted by B Grace I think it's interesting that just when home playback devices can fairly accurately reproduce the images projected from film in a theater with the 24p playback options on Blu-Ray the digital recording means now available for motion pictures makes the traditional film frame rate less important. I found the 24p capability in Blu-Ray to be so impressive I made it number one on my shopping list and I bought my Blu-Ray player first, and the frame rate interpolation software in current TV's is very important. I'm still waiting on purchasing a nice TV because the minimum LCD-panel TV I want is just now available so it's very expensive. Even if you're playing a film at 24 frames per second with a blu-ray disc, 99.9% of TV sets are not going to display at that frequency, so there's no point in being so interested in it. Unless you go out and buy an LCD TV with a 24hz mode and all that I can see are silly-overpriced for such an unimportant feature.

12-26-2009, 04:29 PM	#10
VF-19 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Ottawa Posts: 364	My TV is a 60hz plasma, but when I switch over to a blu-ray, the little info box says "1080p 24hz" instead of "1080p 60hz". 2001 looks so freaking pretty. Especially the stargate sequence. Shame, however, that 1080p is still "low resolution" compared to what a 35 mm frame (or in 2001's case 70mm frame) of film is capable of.

12-26-2009, 11:20 PM	#11
res3567 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Houston Tx. Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,876	Originally posted by VF-19 I don't mind the difference between film and digital, but what I don't like, is when they "restore" the film and remove ALL the grain... Turns it into a pastel picture. Case in point. Aliens was shot with a high grain film (although, Cameron claims that most films made from that particular stock are naturally grainy), and it looks great. The grain adds to the grit of the picture. Take that out, and it suffers from it. You know that is very interesting........ I never would have known....... I was not into photography back then...... But when you compare it to AVP R, I see ONE of the reasons the Aliens film did so well; the latter had HORRIBLE low light detail.... even one of the few scenes witch had sunlight...... now that is BAD!!!!!

12-27-2009, 08:13 PM	#12
Das Boot Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Sparkle City, South Cackalacky Photos: Gallery Posts: 689	Probably the biggest feature never talked in modern televisions is 3:2 pulldown. What I mean is the abilty to detect a film frame rate in 1080i and pull it to 1080p 24Hz. There are televisions that do this and it is the only way you will ever watch broadcasted 1080p in the US. This 120Hz and 240Hz stuff is really the same as megapixel glam in camera features... just numbers.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search