Hollywood films still largely shot on film - I didn't know that

[Colonel Blimp]

Why would computer files be "much more expensive to store long-term" than big reels of film, when you can just keep them on hard disks, cards, or optical discs, and especially optical discs last many decades if not hundreds of years? Maybe a hard disk drive will need to be exercised every so often, so that might not be a great long-term option, but how about flash storage? That's really not that expensive per gigabyte anymore. And you can get data DVDs for as low as 20 cents apiece, or burn data onto single-layer Blu-ray discs for as low as $1.00 per disc! "Much more expensive"? Geesh, with film, over the long term you have to store it in carefully climate-controlled vaults, don't you? Tell me that's "so much less expensive" than storing optical discs without having to worry about that so much.

There are dozens of technical reports that explain the limitations and problems of digital archiving. It is not as simple as burning DVDs or filling hard drives with images and video files.

 

[Kilgallb]

I read a SMPTE article on archiving a few years ago. digital images are converted to analog colour separates, cyan, magenta and yellow, plus one frame with digital audio on TMX -100. This works better than separate film strips. The feeling is it is more lasting than hard drives, tape and memory as cosmic rays do not deteriorate the images or data.