future of film cameras

[Jon O'Brien]

A lot of cinematographers of the old school fell in love with digital cinematography because they suffered too many sleepless nights wondering if their shots worked out and they wouldn't know until they got the dailies back. A lot of producers, too. Still, if your industry is going down the gurgler maybe filmmakers should be motivated to look again at the old ways of making movies.

The mobile phone or cell phone is responsible for a lot of the move away from digital in people's hearts. Deep down people are truly a bit sick of digital because it's literally in our faces all the time. People want something different -- especially if you've gotta pay extra for it.

Edited June 25, 2024 by Jon O'Brien

[Simon Wyss]

I think the discussion is not complete without the question about the future of film projectors. The classical cinema does have a chance to survive but only in its purest form, i. e. when bringing the ingredients that video beamers don’t, carbon-arc light plus relatively simple lenses that transmit at least some of the ultraviolet of the arc and at the same time degrade the stark contrast of relatively dense prints. Screens should be of a reasonable size to the halls.

What concerns printing, precision is vital. Everybody is used to technically completely steady images now, so shaky positives as I had to project them in the eigthies and nineties, fourth generation, is deadly. Why talk about film cameras when films are not properly projected?

[Tyler Purcell]

17 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

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.

Well, it is working already. Reparatory screenings on film, are generally more popular than digital. The problem is advertising. You don't need that in Hollywood, it's such a tight nit community, but you DO need it in places far away from tinseltown. Some reparatory theaters are volunteer run and are part of the community. Others are part of schools and are open to the public to help make money to keep them alive. The key is to continue to promote analog as something unique, not necessarily better, but an "experience" rather than just watching something for the sake of the inherent content. 

[Tyler Purcell]

9 hours ago, Simon Wyss said:

What concerns printing, precision is vital. Everybody is used to technically completely steady images now, so shaky positives as I had to project them in the eigthies and nineties, fourth generation, is deadly. Why talk about film cameras when films are not properly projected?

Fotokem makes excellent prints. Projectors are not spaceships, they are very simple and truthfully anyone with some mechanical experience at all, should be able to keep a projector running forever.

Contact printers are also not very complicated pieces of kit. 

Fotokem built their own LCD based film recorder and one they tweak it, I'm certain it'll be fine for the future. 

Where Kodak's numbers for film production are never a good indication, they also aren't horrible. They still make the only viable products for the industry. Until another company comes in as a disruptor, I don't see this trend changing. 

Unlike raw stock, labs and projectors, which seem to be in very limited quantities, there are thousands of cameras out there. I can't imagine there being a problem with cameras. If there is, Panavison will just make a new one if there is demand. 

[Aapo Lettinen]

using film is partially about the workflow, it affects how the filmmakers will tell the story, like playing the same melody on a different instrument. The audience will see only a part of it as they are only watching the end result and not the whole process and some nuances may go unnoticed for avarage viewer but that does not change the fact that people make somewhat different movie if the shooting medium is changed. the required level of concentration, the logistics, immediate vs delayed feedback, shooting ratio restrictions, pre-planning, light levels, everything.

film does not work well on every and all productions and for some projects it is the wrong choice. some projects can be shot on either format without much an issue. some projects are perfect on film and very dull on digital. Some projects are impossible to shoot on film and some projects lose their soul if shot on anything other than specific film format

[Jon O'Brien]

9 hours ago, Aapo Lettinen said:

using film is partially about the workflow, it affects how the filmmakers will tell the story, like playing the same melody on a different instrument. The audience will see only a part of it as they are only watching the end result and not the whole process and some nuances may go unnoticed for avarage viewer but that does not change the fact that people make somewhat different movie if the shooting medium is changed. the required level of concentration, the logistics, immediate vs delayed feedback, shooting ratio restrictions, pre-planning, light levels, everything.

film does not work well on every and all productions and for some projects it is the wrong choice. some projects can be shot on either format without much an issue. some projects are perfect on film and very dull on digital. Some projects are impossible to shoot on film and some projects lose their soul if shot on anything other than specific film format

I agree.

19 hours ago, Simon Wyss said:

I think the discussion is not complete without the question about the future of film projectors. The classical cinema does have a chance to survive but only in its purest form, i. e. when bringing the ingredients that video beamers don’t, carbon-arc light plus relatively simple lenses that transmit at least some of the ultraviolet of the arc and at the same time degrade the stark contrast of relatively dense prints. Screens should be of a reasonable size to the halls.

What concerns printing, precision is vital. Everybody is used to technically completely steady images now, so shaky positives as I had to project them in the eigthies and nineties, fourth generation, is deadly. Why talk about film cameras when films are not properly projected?

Film projection is ideal in my opinion and I now try to limit my cinema going as much as I can to 35mm and 70mm film prints, which is not easy in Queensland. sometimes I go to see screenings in other states. In Australia I'm not sure if we have many surviving film projectors. If a movie is shot on film I'm happy with the compromise of digital projection. I've carefully compared digital to film projection and I find no or hardly any reduction in viewing pleasure and satisfaction if a movie is shot on film and then projected digitally.

Actually sometimes I see a slight flicker when watching a movie shown on a film projector. So, it's not always a technically perfect experience. Perhaps that's something to do with the timing of the shutter. Just sometimes I notice some flicker with film prints in the cinema, but after a while my eyes get used to it.

Went to see a French film recently (about a famous cook and his new apprentice) and it was nicely shot but filmed on digital (Sony Venice). Would have been somewhat more entertaining I feel if it had been shot on film. Video is lacking in a certain, impossible-to-define 'vibe' that you get from a movie shot on celluloid that always makes a film look more solid and down to earth and more like a traditional 'movie' and not 'video'. It's a real thing in my view but it can't be argued with words. You've got to see it and feel it yourself. But in my opinion the digital projector can faithfully recreate that film vibe on the big screen in a cinema. It was an arty-looking period picture with great art direction and this genre is tailor-made for film.

But still, I agree. Film projection of a good print is the best cinema experience there is. It's worth the price of the ticket and you feel it was a satisfying occasion if you see actual film.

Edited June 26, 2024 by Jon O'Brien

[Jon O'Brien]

11 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

.The key is to continue to promote analog .

Doing my best. Sometimes I get smirks at rental houses. But who cares, they obviously are ignorant.

[Gautam Valluri]

I would like to take this opportunity to plug in the Film Projection website that was created to help keep projection of film prints alive:

https://www.filmprojection21.org/?lang=en_us

[Geffen Avraham]

I feel like in the future, the roadside multiplex with the overpriced popcorn and the unattended digital projectors playing tentpole movies far beyond their lamp life will go away.

Most towns will no longer have multiplexes, but in return, there will be more "event" movies projected on larger screens, at rarer intervals, and often printed to film, even if they originate digitally, like Dune.

For larger, higher end theaters like picture palaces and IMAXes, each film projected is intentional - there is no leaving the digital projectors on auto without attention to focus or brightness.

Most direct-to-streaming star vehicles are not worth seeing in theaters. I feel bad for Steve Yedlin though, who poured his heart and soul into Glass Onion, which never received a wide theatrical release and went almost straight to Netflix. I know that being the perfectionist that he is, he had to make a version with different grain so that it would look best on the other side of their compression.

Maybe someday in a decade or so it will receive an IMAX re-release.

[Scott Barton]

Kodak is apparently making 16 mm roll film, I just bought some special order from B&H...

It is "sound" film (optical) and special order only and only sold in packs of 10 and they offer the 'B-Wind' as well as the 'A-Wind' filmstock...

But Kodak is still supporting 16 mm film...

Not sure of the ISO at present though, and there is a 3 - 5 week lead time for it...

It is only sold in 1200' reels so you have to rewind unless you have 1200' capacity.

I have an Arriflex 16 mm M that can operate with 1200' canister cassettes and so the long film length is highly desirable for me.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1482792-REG/kodak_8629818_eastman_exr_sound_recording.html

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1482798-REG/kodak_8910663_eastman_exr_sound_recording.html

 

[Scott Barton]

On 6/26/2024 at 1:43 AM, Gautam Valluri said:

I would like to take this opportunity to plug in the Film Projection website that was created to help keep projection of film prints alive:

https://www.filmprojection21.org/?lang=en_us

I am all for that!!!

I have 3 Bell and Howell Filmosound 302 sound film projectors and a 185 and these are getting harder and harder to come by...That is unless you want guitar amplifiers!!!!

But I am collecting spare parts and accessories to keep them alive - hopefully well into the future...

[Aapo Lettinen]

57 minutes ago, Scott Barton said:

Kodak is apparently making 16 mm roll film, I just bought some special order from B&H...

It is "sound" film (optical) and special order only and only sold in packs of 10 and they offer the 'B-Wind' as well as the 'A-Wind' filmstock...

But Kodak is still supporting 16 mm film...

Not sure of the ISO at present though, and there is a 3 - 5 week lead time for it...

It is only sold in 1200' reels so you have to rewind unless you have 1200' capacity.

I have an Arriflex 16 mm M that can operate with 1200' canister cassettes and so the long film length is highly desirable for me.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1482792-REG/kodak_8629818_eastman_exr_sound_recording.html

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1482798-REG/kodak_8910663_eastman_exr_sound_recording.html

 

Don't know about that exact stock but with sound film you can try something like 10 or 12 ISO from starters and adjust from there based on the end result. I have shot quite a lot of ST9 at 12 ISO and it was pretty good rating for that stock

[Scott Barton]

Thanks for the tip - I will start there and adjust...

I am excited to receive and try the film...

It should be a fun (and expensive) media to explore, but because of the high amount of reels required to purchase for the special order, I will have enough for my upcoming planned project and hopefully some for future as yet unplanned projects too...

[Scott Barton]

On 6/25/2024 at 1:53 AM, Simon Wyss said:

I think the discussion is not complete without the question about the future of film projectors. The classical cinema does have a chance to survive but only in its purest form, i. e. when bringing the ingredients that video beamers don’t, carbon-arc light plus relatively simple lenses that transmit at least some of the ultraviolet of the arc and at the same time degrade the stark contrast of relatively dense prints. Screens should be of a reasonable size to the halls.

What concerns printing, precision is vital. Everybody is used to technically completely steady images now, so shaky positives as I had to project them in the eigthies and nineties, fourth generation, is deadly. Why talk about film cameras when films are not properly projected?

Hi Simon - I am new to the forum but have been very aware of you and Tyler and others efforts to understand the implications of aging equipment and your discussions of how heroic should the realistic efforts be to save the technology and methodologies involved to operate, maintain and ultimately resurrect pieces of vintage cinematic analog equipment.

I feel that there are a lot of vintage sound and non-sound 16 mm cameras (my preferred film size for my retro vibe) but that the supply of functional projectors for this media is certainly becoming a concern...

I have 3 Bell and Howell Filmosound 302 sound film projectors and a Filmosound 185 projector and some spare parts and bulbs. However, I would like to take care of these units and would appreciate any advisements that you could offer that would help me keep these in solid functional condition or at least in an arrestive state of decay. 

Thanks.

I sure hope the world gets ready for more shaky positives, because I am sure that is all I will ever be able to make, hahaha!

But many thanks to all of you hardware guys that keep this vintage analog world alive for starving-artist cinematographers like me to explore...

Let's hope we are having these conversations for years and years to come...

[Samuel Preston]

On 5/30/2024 at 9:38 AM, Tyler Purcell said:

Arguably... it delivers the best image, but is not the best to use. Ask them if they designed the Kodak camera and they will deny., 

https://logmar.dk/humboldt-s8/

[Tyler Purcell]

On 7/21/2024 at 7:01 AM, Samuel Preston said:

https://logmar.dk/humboldt-s8/

Yea I know, they still deny. lol