future of film cameras

[Albion Hockney]

I'd love to get the perspective of folks working in the camera rental business on this.  I wonder at one point it will be hard to shoot on film because you can't find a good working camera.

The opinion that there is not enough work being shot on film cameras to support the development/cost of a new camera I think is not certain. There is a lot of work being shot on film right now all over. Of course no where near what there once was, but their are many high budget films,tv shows, and even commercials using film.

I wonder if Arri ever considered a new 35mm camera in the past? 

With the high end film look plugins and AI on the rise though I think in maybe the 5-10 years it will be totally indistinguishable what the original medium was.

 

[Geffen Avraham]

1 hour ago, Aapo Lettinen said:

The most practical solution is to use a existing camera which has the movement+gate+mirror shutter+groundglass as a single assembly which can be separated from the camera without ruining the tolerances completely. The most basic camera model for 4perf 35mm would be Konvas1m, they are easy to get and easy to open, easy to get spare parts for and you would get the central assembly out in 5 minutes to start working on the rest of the design. Then transferring the whole movement+optical block to the new camera chassis which has pl-mount, internal motor, newly made pressure plate assembly(though it could use film path parts like pressure plate from the Konvas magazine to reduce machining work needed) and newly made magazine (if you don't want to use Mitchell magazine with it). A sprocket drive to move the film, couple or rollers, belt drive to move the sprocket and that's about it.

I do have a spare Konvas here that I've taken apart, I might try experimenting with it. I've thought of making an entirely new motor+battery assembly for it inspired by your work and utilizing a coaxial Milwaukee M12 battery in the handle, eliminating the need for an external power source and control box.

But I haven't yet considered anything as ambitious as what you propose. I've removed the ground glass prism as well, if I were willing to cut through the casing, a little CMOS video tap could be installed at the same distance from the mirror as the film.

[Geffen Avraham]

1 hour ago, Albion Hockney said:

With the high end film look plugins and AI on the rise though I think in maybe the 5-10 years it will be totally indistinguishable what the original medium was.

 

It likely will be, but as someone who grew up in the digital era, whose first camera was a Sony Handycam, I think film is a good tool for training cinematographers and instilling good practices.

The same way a pilot who earns his license in an experimental plane may be better equipped than one who only flew a Cessna.

[Karim D. Ghantous]

4 hours ago, Albion Hockney said:

I wonder if Arri ever considered a new 35mm camera in the past? 

AFAIK, ARRI did develop a successor to the 435, which could film at 240fps. They never released it though.

[Uli Meyer]

4 hours ago, Albion Hockney said:

I wonder if Arri ever considered a new 35mm camera in the past? 

 

ARRI have absolutely no interest in developing another 35mm camera. Once they started developing digital cameras, there was a time when they actively discouraged the use of analog cameras, according to someone who was there at the time. I remember seeing a photo of someone taking a truckload of Arriflex 416 cameras to be disposed to make space for the new gear. Making analog cameras that last for decades is great for the lucky ones who managed to buy them at a time when they were used as door stoppers in the rental houses. Unfortunately indestructibility doesn't make a lot of business sense in today's world. Last year I talked to someone who had insight into ARRI's business model and he told me that the most lucrative part of their business is the lighting gear they make. Cameras and lenses not so much, probably because they still value quality over profit, which is commendable.

[Tyler Purcell]

50 minutes ago, Uli Meyer said:

Last year I talked to someone who had insight into ARRI's business model and he told me that the most lucrative part of their business is the lighting gear they make.

100% correct, the cameras aren't a profit center, as they make them all. 

Guarantee you, much of the lights are made in Asia. Profits are off the hook. 

[Tyler Purcell]

6 hours ago, Albion Hockney said:

I'd love to get the perspective of folks working in the camera rental business on this.  I wonder at one point it will be hard to shoot on film because you can't find a good working camera.

The guys I work with, they're pretty confident. They have lots of bodies and put two or three cameras on a shoot. They do a lot of the CLA stuff in-house and most of the big camera packages like the Arricam, are very reliable. Arri still has lots of parts and so don't the Arri rental/service shops. I don't think Arricam parts will go away anytime soon, maybe 5 years? Even then, unless we have a roadblock problem like we are starting to see with prism coatings on SR's, I don't think the parts supply is even that necessary. Arricam's are simply superb cameras. 

6 hours ago, Albion Hockney said:

The opinion that there is not enough work being shot on film cameras to support the development/cost of a new camera I think is not certain. There is a lot of work being shot on film right now all over. Of course no where near what there once was, but their are many high budget films,tv shows, and even commercials using film.

If Arri with all their in-house manufacturing, couldn't make a studio camera for less than 150k in the early 2000's. I doubt anyone could compete with that in the 2020's. A new studio camera would cost $500k probably, especially to the level of consistency and quality as Arri. They do crazy things that nobody else would even think of. It's very overkill, but the results are on screen and it looks great.

So no, NOBODY is going to pay for $500k for a new camera. 

6 hours ago, Albion Hockney said:

I wonder if Arri ever considered a new 35mm camera in the past? 

No, they hated film. They had spent so much money developing CMOS imagers (for their scanners), they didn't want anything to do with film once they could turn those imagers into camera's. Funny enough, it was that development that got them moving into digital cinema, it really wasn't something they were working on until they put the pieces together. Kinda funny story on how that all happened by accident.

Arri also use to make lots of other cool things like laser recorders and even processing machines. They owned the entire chain outside of raw stock. 

Also remember, the cameras Arri made were so good and so consistent, they basically almost went out of business. They joined forces with Bauer (moviecam) in a last ditch effort to create a camera that everyone would want, to try and make SOME money. The arricam was the finished product and they sold lot of them, it was a real hit and Arri also had no more competition now that they basically owned their only real competitor for lightweight 35mm studio cameras.  They had nowhere else to go after the Arricam, no real new ideas that would have sold in the quantities they could with the Arricam. This is why they did other cameras after, like the 235 and 416, as if to put a final stamp/seal on the end of film. They updated all the formats (outside of 65mm) that they made and that was the end of that. 235, 435, Arricam and 416, it was a great lineup, better than they'd ever had in the past. 

6 hours ago, Albion Hockney said:

With the high end film look plugins and AI on the rise though I think in maybe the 5-10 years it will be totally indistinguishable what the original medium was.

The medium dies if it's scanned and presented digitally. 

Film is by far, most importantly, projected. 

No prints = the death of film. 

Luckily, recording out to film is something a lot of people do. 

With the rise of AI, "the real thing" is something people will want and cherish more and more, kinda like records created from analog sources, today. 

With the development of new, lower cost recorders and simpler methods (direct to print stock with soundtrack) of making digital prints, I do believe the AI revolution will drive more films to be presented ON FILM as a differentiating factor, as well as shooting on film, but hey... only time will tell. The film look has been alive and well in the Arri Alexa anyway, adding some halation and grain, is all you really need to do. 

Edited June 3, 2024 by Tyler Purcell

[Geffen Avraham]

The film look is only alive if you take time to make it. The out-of-the-box Alexa look these days has been so overused, I can’t stand seeing it anymore. Give me old RED One footage with its greenish tint any day over the same old flat perfectly exposed plastic image.

Even orange and teal was better than this.
 

How realistic is it to want more film projection? I am lucky to live in San Francisco, where we have one of only 12 theaters worldwide that projected Dune 2 in IMAX 70mm. But Dune, Tenet, and Oppenheimer are the only film prints I’ve seen in years.

Even the Roxie’s planned 70mm screening of Tron couldn’t get the print at the last minute and had to screen a 4K DCP instead.

Edited June 3, 2024 by Geffen Avraham

[Dom Jaeger]

6 hours ago, Albion Hockney said:

I'd love to get the perspective of folks working in the camera rental business on this.  I wonder at one point it will be hard to shoot on film because you can't find a good working camera.

Between them Panavision and Arri Rental supply a sizable portion of the cameras used on the movies shot on film these days, certainly most of the bigger budget ones. Both companies have enough techs, knowledge and manufacturing ability to keep their fleets working, as long as people keep renting them.  

[Geffen Avraham]

When was the last time Panavision built a new film camera of any kind?

 

Who is building the new IMAX cameras? Marty S Mueller is presumably retired, as is Bruce McNaughton. Who is leading this project?

[Aapo Lettinen]

40 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

unless we have a roadblock problem like we are starting to see with prism coatings on SR's

Optical surfaces can be recoated, it is very normal stuff to do though would still need someone specualised in optics to do. A company making custom industrial optics (optical windows, lenses, prisms and stuff) could arrange that. No need to throw stuff away just because coating gone bad. A industrial optics company could make you new prisms too, that is basically what they do for living all day every day

[Uli Meyer]

57 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

100% correct, the cameras aren't a profit center, as they make them all. 

Guarantee you, much of the lights are made in Asia. Profits are off the hook. 

The lighting market is much bigger too. TV sets, theatre stages, concert halls etc. 

[Dom Jaeger]

22 minutes ago, Geffen Avraham said:

When was the last time Panavision built a new film camera of any kind?

They stopped manufacturing cameras about 15 years ago, like everyone else. But they have a huge inventory, lots of working bodies and even more in storage. Certainly no need to make more in this era, with the demand there is.

[Dom Jaeger]

1 hour ago, Aapo Lettinen said:

Optical surfaces can be recoated, it is very normal stuff to do though would still need someone specualised in optics to do. A company making custom industrial optics (optical windows, lenses, prisms and stuff) could arrange that. No need to throw stuff away just because coating gone bad. A industrial optics company could make you new prisms too, that is basically what they do for living all day every day

Exactly right.

[Daniel D. Teoli Jr.]

OP...I'd guess no. But I'm no expert, I'm just going by trends.

No matter how much you hate to admit it, film is an archaic and dying area of production.  For me, cameras were always a means to an end, a tool. For others it IS the end...fondling camera gear is their end goal. Figure out what camp you are in. Do you just collect gear or do you produce anything meaningful with your film gear?

With my archival work, I'm constantly working with film. But for my personal work I'm all digital after 30 years of shooting film. Seldom if ever do I miss film. With M-Disc or archival Blu-ray you can replace the benefit of physical film with archival copies that will greatly outlast film.

Also see my post in the Off Topic section - 'Film is very low-res stuff.' 

<><><><>

Fredericks' of Hollywood 1985 Catalog

Selection from Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Frederick's of Hollywood Archive

Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Archival Collection
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Small Gauge Film Archive
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Advertising Archive
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. VHS Video Archive
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Popular Culture Archive
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Audio Archive
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Social Documentary Photography

 

 

[Helge Abrahamson]

16 hours ago, Steve Switaj said:

In fairness, there are some parts that are going to be harder to source in the modern world, like a ground glass, but overall I think it's doable.

You wouldn’t need a ground glass – there really is no need for an optical VF system. Ground glass should be replaced with CMOS sensor – would give you MUCH better video assist, plus all new viewfinder options (like easily customizable guidelines, multiple de-squeeze options and LUT’s simulating the film stock being used).

[Robin Phillips]

10 hours ago, Uli Meyer said:

The lighting market is much bigger too. TV sets, theatre stages, concert halls etc. 

the best thing for anyone making these new LED light systems is that the end user cant replace the bulbs when the "light engines" start to color bias out of spec. you have to buy a new core, and at that point its arguably easier to just buy new lights. its a similar eventual obsolescence you get with digital cameras and how their sensors eventually start to bias in weird ways. Plus they can eventually pull support from those products to encourage new purchases. 

So its good for business in that respect. weird though how so much specialty and arguably industrial equipment has become commodified the last two decades.

that all being said I'd much rather spend weeks under the LED lights than under the old stuff. 

[Tyler Purcell]

14 hours ago, Geffen Avraham said:

How realistic is it to want more film projection? I am lucky to live in San Francisco, where we have one of only 12 theaters worldwide that projected Dune 2 in IMAX 70mm. But Dune, Tenet, and Oppenheimer are the only film prints I’ve seen in years.

Film projection made a huge comeback in 2015 with Hateful 8 and nearly all of those projectors are still in place. 

Fotokem made a huge investment, building a new 5 perf 70mm recorder. It's not the best thing, but it works ok. 

I'm certain IMAX will be building a new recorder as well, they'll have to as the CRT recorders are losing life on those left over tubes. 

35mm record out's are easy, just need an Arri laser, it's pretty straight forward and good quality. 

There are over 150 theaters equipped with 5 perf 70mm projectors in the world. 

There are over 500 theaters equipped with 35mm projectors in the world. 

There are roughly 35 theaters equipped with 15P 70 in the world. 

So are they big numbers? No... will they save CINEMA? No... but unfortunately, in our AI driven world, there is no choice but to look at analog workflows again. 

14 hours ago, Geffen Avraham said:

Even the Roxie’s planned 70mm screening of Tron couldn’t get the print at the last minute and had to screen a 4K DCP instead.

It happens, but it's rare. We were supposed to see Dune II on 15P for the opening screening, but because they played 15P movies all day prior, they didn't have the time to switch prints over to Dune II. Oh well. It happens. They screened it on 15P the next 6 weeks straight. 

Edited June 3, 2024 by Tyler Purcell

[Tyler Purcell]

13 hours ago, Aapo Lettinen said:

Optical surfaces can be recoated, it is very normal stuff to do though would still need someone specualised in optics to do. A company making custom industrial optics (optical windows, lenses, prisms and stuff) could arrange that. No need to throw stuff away just because coating gone bad. A industrial optics company could make you new prisms too, that is basically what they do for living all day every day

I haven't found anyone in the United States who specializes in one at a time. You can't just send one in for re-coating. You have to send in batches of them to do. I don't get 50 prisms to coat at a time. In fact, this year we've only seen two. 

[Jon O'Brien]

Not all that much has really changed regarding the difficulties of shooting moving pictures on film. It was always expensive, in every era. Super 8 was always expensive to shoot, even back in the 80s. You could only afford to buy a roll of film if you saved up. I had good work in the school holidays so was able to save up for film. Then I did Film & TV at a public school and the school paid for the film I used. Then I left school and had to make my own way in the world .... and the filming soon stopped because I couldn't afford to be a filmmaker any more. Back then home video was garbage and I wouldn't have anything to do with it. It was also very expensive. I wanted to get into 16mm but couldn't afford the film. I had an old Bolex I got when I swapped an SLR for it at school but I couldn't even afford a projector. So I had to quit.

I got back into filmmaking many years later but it's still expensive. I had the idea to film projects for people at not much more than cost. But so far no takers. No one so far can afford the luxury of even a Super 8 movie of their wedding. I even have difficulty offering to film things for people for free!

It's not true that those who are into real film just like to admire the cameras but not do anything with them. I've made many a sacrifice because I know that film is a better look than digital. Life Geffen, I don't like the sterile and plastic look of modern video. People call it 'filmmaking' but it's not anymore. It's usually now just video. Our "film" industry is a video industry. We now go out to see feature length videos. My only interest in real film is for the truly better look and emotion that comes from shooting on motion picture film. I think that scanned and digitally projected film looks great. I've compared it to film projection and the two look almost identical and I have a good eye for visual art.

There are now so many filmmakers around because of the rise of affordable digital video cameras. Back in the 70's and 80's just a few Mums or Dads had a Super 8 camera that they took on holidays with them but that was the reality for most people. Now there are filmmakers everywhere.

[Jon O'Brien]

The old stand by if you wanted to be a filmmaker upon leaving school was to get a job at a TV station, and work your way up to DoP in the film industry somehow. That was pretty much the only way back in the 80s and around that time. Perhaps that's what I should have done. Anyway, like the poem says, I took the other road in the woods.

[Jon O'Brien]

Btw, I still think that film will survive. What we are seeing now is a major drop in interest in the film industry generally. Hollywood films are currently flops in many cases. Things happen in cycles. This has all happened before. There will likely be a resurgence in the film industry and the film and the film camera equipment is there when it happens. Film will survive not because of nostalgia but because of its inherent quality. Film gives a better vibe when you sit down and watch it. If you can't see this or feel this yourself perhaps it might be wise to put the digital camera on the shelf, or on Ebay, and do something else with your future. Study engineering or law like everyone else, maybe.

[Albion Hockney]

On 6/3/2024 at 2:32 AM, Dom Jaeger said:

Between them Panavision and Arri Rental supply a sizable portion of the cameras used on the movies shot on film these days, certainly most of the bigger budget ones. Both companies have enough techs, knowledge and manufacturing ability to keep their fleets working, as long as people keep renting them.  

 very nice to hear they are able to handle the parts and all the stuff to keep everything running! I assume we will keep wanting them for a bit longer!

[Doyle Smith]

On 5/30/2024 at 11:47 AM, Victoria Sagady said:

I think it’s worth noting that one of the biggest threats to using film is not the age of the cameras or cost of repair, but the institutional knowledge that is slowly fading away as less and less people are apprenticed/trained in on using these cameras and maintaining them.  Beyond manuals and instructional videos many of these cameras have personalities and quirks that can be very difficult to work with if you don’t know them or the best ways to work with them.  

As each lab closes we have less and less people who know the ins and outs of the development process and how to maintain that equipment.  We’re going to hit a point where all that experience retires or passes away without being passed on to enough people to keep working with film practical.  We’ve seen this with many industries as technology advances and while there has been a good effort to keep film alive I beleive it’s sadly a matter of time. 

Astute point here. In pursuit of my two other major interests, Hammond organs and BMW vintage "Airhead" motorcycles we encounter this problem. The Airheads host "Tech Days" where we invite younger members to bring in their bikes to be fettled and repaired. It's a hands-on "see one, do one" process. We are riding bikes that are over 60-70 years old and still playing organs from the 40's and 50's. There are now several generations that have been exposed to the disposable rather than repairable ethos.

I remember Panavision used to fund optical engineering scholarships with an eye to the future. With the advances in CAD and CNC  and 3D printing I can't help but believe new camera production is feasible.  However the question remains... "Does anyone care?"

[Jon O'Brien]

On 6/4/2024 at 7:38 AM, Tyler Purcell said:

...in our AI driven world, there is no choice but to look at analog workflows again. 

I wonder if that's so. As you say only time will tell but wouldn't that be a surprise if more and more people felt they wanted to see and hear real physical things again if they're going to shell out their hard-earned for a ticket. Up to the level so that major film industries start to listen. I've felt that way for years. The older generations are in love with digital everything because it's so easy but younger people seem more interested in real physical things because it just brings more meaning to an increasingly glib and ephemeral world.

Edited June 25, 2024 by Jon O'Brien