Why are some series and movies shot on film?

Because film looks better. Check out a show on primetime network TV, that shits digital and it looks awful.

Generally speaking, film is considerably cheaper than digital for large productions. The cameras cost a lot less to rent and you are pretty much guaranteed not to overshoot. Post-production houses charge by the hour, so if your doing a feature and you shoot 60hrs of footage with digital, vs 20 hours of footage on film, thats 1/3 the cost.

zbphotoGenerally speaking, film is considerably cheaper than digital for large productions. The cameras cost a lot less to rent and you are pretty much guaranteed not to overshoot. Post-production houses charge by the hour, so if your doing a feature and you shoot 60hrs of footage with digital, vs 20 hours of footage on film, thats 1/3 the cost.

You have this completely backwards. Film is WAY more expensive to shoot with than digital!! By a long shot.

The reason digital made such a storm in the cinema world is its Inexpensive nature. Not because it is a better format. Digital cameras are still on the quest to do what film cameras can image wise (dynamic rang, and color science). If film was cheaper everyone sure as hell would not shoot digital.

That being said. To answer op's question. Those that have production budgets to shoot film may choose it for many reasons. The biggest reason is the look. Film has a very organic way of handling light and color. The "film look" is made of thre important qualities. Dynamic range, grain and color science.

The dynamic range of film is much larger than most digital cameras (even reds). Most film is around 15 stops of dynamic range. Most digital cameras lie around 8-13 stops. On top of just stops, film offers a very smooth and organic transition into the clipped highlights. Digital is known for a very harsh clip, creating an unnatural look.

The color science of film is very different from digital. Film offers rich and vibrant colors without being over saturated. Where as digital handles things in a much less natural way.

Last is grain. The grain found in film offers great texture to the image. It helps give a more gritty feel to the image. Unlike color science and dynamic range you can easily recreate this effect in post.

By no means am i an expert on the subject. I do hope this helps answer your question though!

zbphotoGenerally speaking, film is considerably cheaper than digital for large productions. The cameras cost a lot less to rent and you are pretty much guaranteed not to overshoot. Post-production houses charge by the hour, so if your doing a feature and you shoot 60hrs of footage with digital, vs 20 hours of footage on film, thats 1/3 the cost.

Digital is far cheaper than film my dude.

Watch every/any (preferably every) Tarantino movie and you'll understand why film is superior in terms of the final product.

gh3 with nd filter and color grade p much film

RockNRollNghtClbgh3 with nd filter and color grade p much film

eh... nah

RockNRollNghtClbgh3 with nd filter and color grade p much film

Lol Wyatt

Hate to be that guy, but you're both wrong :)

zbphotoGenerally speaking, film is considerably cheaper than digital for large productions. The cameras cost a lot less to rent and you are pretty much guaranteed not to overshoot. Post-production houses charge by the hour, so if your doing a feature and you shoot 60hrs of footage with digital, vs 20 hours of footage on film, thats 1/3 the cost.

The cost you're describing is usage variance, which has to do with production capacity. It has nothing to do with the medium itself (though there is an obvious relationship).

j-calYou have this completely backwards. Film is WAY more expensive to shoot with than digital!! By a long shot.

The reason digital made such a storm in the cinema world is its Inexpensive nature. Not because it is a better format. Digital cameras are still on the quest to do what film cameras can image wise (dynamic rang, and color science). If film was cheaper everyone sure as hell would not shoot digital.

You're right, but you're only seeing half the picture. Digital is cheaper to SHOOT, but beyond that it's a less cost-efficient medium in an industrial application (multi-million dollar projects). You pay less up front for equipment, storage (SSD is cheaper than 35mm film stock), and labor (more saturated market of video-capable shooters than film-capable shooters). But the downstream costs of digital, due in part to the logistics of archiving, pretty much makes up for the cost savings up front. On top of all this, digital is sure as hell less reliable than film, which can get expensive quick as you constantly pay tradesmen to safeguard your footage from computer failure (DITs etc.). But it's easier to get a project greenlit based on up-front costs, so sure, "digital is cheaper," who gives a shit, right?

lIllIBut the downstream costs of digital, due in part to the logistics of archiving, pretty much makes up for the cost savings up front.

*This probably isn't true for VFX-heavy stuff.

lIllI*This probably isn't true for VFX-heavy stuff.

VFX can be done on digital or film...

GrantLewisIsDNTMVFX can be done on digital or film...

Yes, but some aspects of VFX work are easier (less costly) when shooting digital than it is when shooting film. Lighting, makeup, post work, etc.

lIllIThe cost you're describing is usage variance, which has to do with production capacity. It has nothing to do with the medium itself (though there is an obvious relationship).

Yes, thats basically what I was getting at.

lIllI*This probably isn't true for VFX-heavy stuff.

The new marvel comics movie they shot in Toronto last summer was done on film.

i think that a serial is better than a film