what type of camera for theatrical movies?

[johnhamler1]

hi,

when they shoot a movie at Hollywood(I say Hollywood to make the difference between amateur and pro), do they use digit camera, or it is still these 24 pictures films?

Some movies theater use now digital projector I guess?
or do they mix both type or cameras (under water I think they use digital camera).What about special effects, what support do they use?

maybe some professionals here, could explain me how it works.

[J_Darnley]

It depends on the film. Lord of the Rings was shot on film, I think that Star Wars Episodes II and III were both shot on digital. Well what do you know, Wikipedia has a category of:
Films shot digitally (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Films_shot_digitally)

As for the theatres, what they show it with will depend on what they have. I would expect all films still get film rolls for distribution and then if a theatre has a digital projector they maybe able to request a digital copy if one is available for that film.

[Mug Funky]

it's still mostly film, as digital is not there yet, not by a long shot (though the way some recent films have been shot, you wouldn't know it...).

even budget-wise, film is still a bit cheaper - digital is full of hidden costs and compromises that haven't been ironed out yet.

[edit]

as far as projection goes, most cinemas with digital projection are only 1.3k (1280x720), and the lamps aren't as bright, nor the quality as good (most cinemas don't support the jpeg-2000 based ISO spec, and have simply bought server-based systems mostly using mpeg-2 at 25mbps max... and encoding for these is a pain)

[Ar3d]

IC.. So what was the most advance type of camera or what was you recommended type of camera for those beginner? thanks in advance..

[JohnnyMalaria]

There are a number of indie movies shot in DV....

[klinika]

For film, an old Arriflex probably won't gonna cost an arm and a leg. Quoting wikipedia concerning Super 16, "with the recent development of digital intermediate workflows, it is now possible to "digitally blow up" to 35 mm with virtually no quality loss (given a high quality digital scan)."

[2Bdecided]

Many broadcasters (including Discovery, and the BBC) will not accept Super16 as being suitable for HD broadcast.

Cheers,
David.

[audiohominis]

it's still mostly film, as digital is not there yet, not by a long shot
Not by a long shot mainly considering the still unparalleled exposure quality and color gamut of the film, right? Nevertheless, in terms of picture detail that Red One camcorder for one appears quite impressive. I realize that promotional footage is usually beautiful because it’s tightly controlled but this product proved worthy of Peter Jackson’s shot. Jackson never seemed too keen on digital to me, in contrast to Lucas per say. So I’m assuming it’s a darn good camera. I’m a huge fan and beholder of film, but the digital may catch up and even surpass sooner than we know.
even budget-wise, film is still a bit cheaper - digital is full of hidden costs and compromises that haven't been ironed out yet.
Is it really? Obviously, you know something I don’t. Could you get into more detail, or perhaps link to an article/discussion thread? It’s just that as far as I know with digital you don’t get the quality of film, but it offers other advantages in return. Film itself is expensive to begin with and can only be used once, whereas hard disks and cassettes can be used multiple times. Film has to be developed and scanned, whereas digital can be immediately dumped and made ready for editing. This saves both money and time (which in a classic sense is often synonymous of money) and helps meet the deadlines. Digital allows for on-set HD monitoring; film doesn’t. Could you please give me a brief scoop of the shortcomings of digital other than quality?
(though the way some recent films have been shot, you wouldn't know it...).
That’s ‘cause they color grade and process the hell out of it, no? They use a lot of tricks that help make digital look almost as good as film.

[Mug Funky]

please don't take any of this as gospel truth... more just a summary of how i see things from where i'm sitting at the moment.

on the Red One:

i haven't dealt with anything shot on it myself, but _i hear_ that peter jackson's shoot needed a lot of finessing in the grade. apparently it got a little clippy. i wouldn't be able to cite anything more than hearsay though, and the fact is that if a good DoP gets long enough to figure a camera out, they'll be able to shoot great footage on anything. i'd say the marketing deadlines may have got in the way a little here, and once more stuff gets shot on these cameras the quality will improve as well.

on hidden costs:

on set HD monitoring is great, but you have to hire a HD monitor, additional gear to plug it all in, probably a HDCAM SR deck or large hard disk array, or spend forever capturing off the flashmag into a format that can be edited (this may take as long or longer than a telecine transfer or high-speed scan). also, lighting has to be much more carefully managed. basically, lighting budget goes up, and equipment hire budget goes up where processing/telecine/negmatch disappear.

also, shooting digital means you must do a DI, where shooting on film doesn't yet imply this (though not many films these days don't get one). this is still an expensive process, and hopefully will remain so for my sake :) though it seems DI and grading is going to become more accessible with the release of programs like Color as part of editing suite bundles - this is an interesting time for colourists, because we haven't quite seen where it's all going yet.

digital does tend to respond a little better in low light though, so docos, low budget movies will still get a better deal from shooting in HD (the P2 is very popular, and can look stunning in good hands).

on recent films being shot in a manner that removes some of the quality difference:

faster, grainier stocks like 500T are very popular, as is handheld camerawork. when the screen is a blurry, grainy, dizzying mess, there's no compelling reason not to shoot digital...

the colour grade doesn't really figure into the digital/film difference as much as it could - most of the time the colourist is preparing the movie for a film-out, meaning no matter what the source material it'll all be put into the same range. of course, some DoP's like to push things just because they can. an analog film intermediate will give you overall RGB brightness adjusting, where a DI gives you every tool you'd find in a telecine suite, and usually much more, and in a realtime, nonlinear timeline - this is quite revolutionary compared to how it's always been done in the past. just the time saved on not having to spool back and forward is considerable, and is much better for the film too - less handling = less dust or chance of damage.

[edit]

@ Ar3d:

i'm not the one to ask about that - never picked up a movie camera before. i come in after it's been shot and processed. but if you're a beginner there's no point going for the most advanced cameras - they have the most advanced price tags. besides, it's more down to the operator than the camera. it may be best to hunt around for a good DoP who is willing to work with beginners (this is more likely than it sounds) and ask them.

[zambelli]

IC.. So what was the most advance type of camera or what was you recommended type of camera for those beginner? thanks in advance..
Try the Canon HV20 - it natively shoots 24p and records it as 1440x1080 (interlaced with 3:2 pattern) to HDV (MPEG-2 on DV tape). You can get it for ~$800 these days on Ebay. It's quite a steal. I hope it marks the death of DV which really, really needs to go away ASAP.

[jamieg-au]

audiohominis, film is so dead.
I work in digital playback systems, open based ones to DCI.

A typical theatrical release film cannot touch a 2k digital projected print.
read here (My Blog) for some reasons why.
http://www.crafted.com.au/blog/2008/04/11/shoot-film-or-shoot-digital-that-is-the-question/

James