James Bond's Skyfall is yet another digitally-shot film

[Heath McKnight]

They probably wouldn't process all of that, but yeah, I'm sure PJ would've shot a TON of 35mm film. It's staggering, these types movies when they shoot on film, how much they use. I remember over-rehearsing in film school, because I knew we didn't have a lot of 16mm film. Digital really helps out.

heath

[Jonathan Shaw]

Sorry correction 20 million feet!!!

Far out

[Brian Drysdale]

As a percentage of the budgets, the film and lab costs aren't that large on these big budget films. Other items take up a much higher proportion of the casts.

Given the last footage figure mentioned it might possibly help if the cameras were switched off between takes, some directors have the developed habit of leaving the cameras running. Some directors were/are doing this even when shooting on 35mm..

Of course, being 3D everything is also doubled.

[Greg Miller]

Originally Posted by Robert Sanders

TDKR is still a mixture of anamorphic 35mm and IMAX. So fidelity will still change mid-sequence (which annoys me).

Kind of like the old Van der Valk TV series, half (mostly outdoor and locations) shot on film (so bad it might have been 16mm), with the indoor studio scenes done in video. So half of the shots were grainy, contrasty, fuzzy, and with lots of dust on the film; the other half were very sharp, low contrast, colors out of registration, and lots of red smear. It was so bad that I still remember it vividly.

[Brian Drysdale]

If you're talking about the British TV series, it would've been 16mm combined with studio video material.

Series like "The Avengers" with US sales would've been shot on 35mm.. These tend to be ITC productions, which also seem to have a longer shelf life and quite a few of their productions still get screened on UK television.