I was just curious about something. From what I have read and understand, fewer and fewer films are shot with film. In fact, I read the only company that still makes actual 35mm film is Kodak and they only have one type of stock.

In an interview with Panavision, cinematographer Larry Sher said that he still shoots film and uses digital intermediaries or DI. I have never had the opportunity to shoot with film, let alone use DI, but my understanding of the process is that the film is shot with film, then scanned into a digital file (the DI part), edited and color corrected and more fxs added, then the film is converted back into a negative from which film prints are made.

https://www.panavision.com/lawrence-sher-talks-about-lighting-hangover-ii

My question is this:

If a film is digitized, color corrected, and then converted back to film, is it really correct to say that it is a movie made on film? It was shot on film, of course, but all color correction was done in a digital format, and then it was rendered back into film. Wouldn't be more correct to say it is then a hybrid process and not purely a filmic one?

I ask this because I recently heard a Hollywood director say that he will only shoot on film and abhors digital. But then I thought if he uses DI, which a lot of directors do, then isn't it really a film/digital process any way?

Just wondering.