13642834:zbphoto said:
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.
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!
