Only film is film

[Jon O'Brien]

Only film is film.

The only way film will survive the next 30 years is for filmmakers to say this, again and again. Only film is film. The rest is video.

[Jeff Bernstein]

[Simon Wyss]

Totally logic. Video has the analogue notation to me, so I’d say the rest is computer stuff. Binary-numerical

[Tyler Purcell]

12 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

The only way film will survive the next 30 years is for filmmakers to say this, again and again. Only film is film. The rest is video.

The only way it'll survive is to keep costs down. 

With the raw materials required to make film going up GLOBALLY, there is a literal clock on this and it's ticking fast. 

The last price hike got a lot of people out of super 8, I'm on the groups and people complain non-stop about it, selling their cameras and getting out. The 16mm and 35mm guys seem to be ok for now, the price hike didn't affect them that much (only 8%). Now, with the US dollar inflating this year at a record level, when Kodak goes to buy more silver, they will have to raise rates again. They may have bought enough to be ok for a while, but who knows. Plus, they are relying more and more on thin film products to survive, which means the profit margins need to be greater so they can put more money into keeping the machines running. 

There are no other options. Nobody is coming to save the day. Kodak will be the only brand making the quantities and quality required for motion picture production. So we are beholden to them forever. 

Once the crazy US tariffs are rescinded, the LED wall business will explode in the US. Most of the theaters will convert to OLED walls almost instantly, the push will be insane. Premium theaters with their bigger screens will be last to convert, but I predict by 2030 if we don't see any more crazy failures in the economy and a massive recession, that most theaters will be converted. With OLED walls, there is no way to project, so all of those 70mm projectors installed into smaller multiplexes for Hateful Eight, which were the big shift in the business back in 2015 will probably be retired and shipped off to storage. IMAX will probably stick around with their 70mm business for a bit longer simply due to costs vs screen size, but even they will eventually convert. 

So yea, this is the time to shoot film. I would stock up on short ends/re-can's. I'd have a freezer full and don't touch it, just store it. There will be no time in the future where film will be lower cost then it is today, this is the bottom of the floor currently. I'm planning on investing around $15k at the end of the year on re-can's and new 16mm stock to last me through 2027/2028. I don't know where it goes from there, I really don't. Price hikes every year I think will be the new trend, they have no choice due to the tariffs and inflation. 

 

[Ross Yeandle]

I've rebranded my RED as my iPhone on set...☺️

[Karim D. Ghantous]

I think a revolution in photochemistry is required. It's not just silver, but that is part of it. Can we make film more sensitive? Maybe, maybe not. Can we give it more latitude? Yes, we can do that already, by adding more layers - within limits.

Can we make it cheaper? Probably not. But you never know.

[Mark Wiggins]

I remember,here in the UK, when the BBC banned the use of Super16 back in 2006 and said everything had to be shot on video, everyone was saying that was it, that was the death of film. Yet here we are, 20 years later and it’s still going.🤔

Edited September 7 by Mark Wiggins

[Aapo Lettinen]

I think the best one can do is to sell one's spare camera collection to young people who happen to have some money.

Keep two cameras, sell the rest. Every camera body you don't personally use goes to a person who would actually use it for actual filming.

It breaks my heart to see those film camera collectors bragging about their pristine Bolex camera collection of 50 to 100 great condition cameras, knowing those cameras were "stolen from the community" forcing the people actually using film to shoot on attic find scraps which are really not fully restorable anymore.

It is like billionaires hoarding money... they will just prevent anyone else having it and sit on it like a freakin dragon when everyone else is starving 😅

[John Salim]

I remember,here in the UK, when the BBC banned the use of Super16 back in 2006 and said everything had to be shot on video, everyone was saying that was it, that was the death of film. Yet here we are, 20 years later and it’s still going.🤔

Edited 3 hours ago by Mark Wiggins

---------------------------

This policy by the BBC and other broadcasters here in the UK was reversed back in 2013.

John S

 

Edited September 7 by John Salim

[Mark Wiggins]

4 hours ago, John Salim said:

I remember,here in the UK, when the BBC banned the use of Super16 back in 2006 and said everything had to be shot on video, everyone was saying that was it, that was the death of film. Yet here we are, 20 years later and it’s still going.🤔

Edited 3 hours ago by Mark Wiggins

---------------------------

This policy by the BBC and other broadcasters here in the UK was reversed back in 2013.

John S

 

Yes, but I am making a point

[Tyler Purcell]

13 hours ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

I think a revolution in photochemistry is required. It's not just silver, but that is part of it. Can we make film more sensitive? Maybe, maybe not. Can we give it more latitude? Yes, we can do that already, by adding more layers - within limits.

Can we make it cheaper? Probably not. But you never know.

Yea, I don't think anyone is going to invest millions in developing all-new emulsions anymore. Kodak for sure isn't. 

From my understanding, they did try to make a 1000 ISO stock, they used it on a few films as a beta test. I guess they decided not to make it. I would assume it was due to the fact that 500T pushed a stop is probably the same result. 

Re-formulating still film to work with ECN-2 is something people have been wanting, but as we found out with Verta, which is Portra 400, you lose sensitivity when you go from C-41 to ECN-2. 

If "film" continues to be 100% reliant on the United States, then the pricing will continue to go up, just like US inflation. 

A disruptor needs to come into the industry and so far, we haven't seen that. Lucky, ORWO, Illford, Farrania and Fuji, nobody has any interest in actually disrupting Kodak. They mostly make "alternative" product, rather than "key" product like Kodak. Illford could be the disruptor, they do have a color emulsion, they do have the machines to properly make it in quantities as well. Yet, they simply don't enter the motion business, which to me shows they'd have to charge MORE than Kodak, which is why we haven't seen any breakthrough. Kodak makes so much film, they can keep the pricing reasonable, where other brands simply can't make that much and resort to still-only, where they get much more per foot then they ever could with motion. 

So it's really a catch 22 and that's why I don't believe we will see anything change, it would take a millionaire to lose a lot of money because they love film; AKA Polaroid rebirth. 

[Tyler Purcell]

12 hours ago, Aapo Lettinen said:

I think the best one can do is to sell one's spare camera collection to young people who happen to have some money.

Keep two cameras, sell the rest. Every camera body you don't personally use goes to a person who would actually use it for actual filming.

Yep, I have 3 camera kits and a few non-working sentimental camera bodies. I use to have a dozen cameras, but I feel the same way. I've sold them off over the years to young filmmakers, one of them is more busy than I've ever been with it. 

12 hours ago, Aapo Lettinen said:

It breaks my heart to see those film camera collectors bragging about their pristine Bolex camera collection of 50 to 100 great condition cameras, knowing those cameras were "stolen from the community" forcing the people actually using film to shoot on attic find scraps which are really not fully restorable anymore.

It's horrible. There is a bloke on Facebook who has over 500 Bolex's and another guy who has a few hundred Beaulieu's, Scoopics and other lower-end 16mm and super 8 cameras. It's just a real shame. 

The super 8 community always complains about the entry level camera costs being the reason why they don't get into 16mm. I don't buy it really, because super 8 is expensive as well, so maybe they just don't know? Needless to say, I think more cameras would lead to lower prices. There for sure are less people today on their "entry" level journey then there were last year, the Bolex business is really dry right now. I see a lot of cameras sitting on eBay for months, compared to last year where they'd be gone in minutes after posting. Next year I predict we will see more cameras than buyers and I feel the pricing will start to recess a bit. 

 

[Brandon Paterno]

14 hours ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

 

Can we make it cheaper? Probably not. But you never know.

for the sake of what ifs: can we make it vegan? haha

[David Mullen ASC]

2 minutes ago, Brandon Paterno said:

for the sake of what ifs: can we make it vegan? haha

Since gelatin is a byproduct of the meat industry, it is very, very cheap to buy compared to some synthetic versions, which exist but apparently aren't as good either.

[Daniel D. Teoli Jr.]

On 9/6/2026 at 3:58 AM, Jon O'Brien said:

Only film is film.

The only way film will survive the next 30 years is for filmmakers to say this, again and again. Only film is film. The rest is video.

That has got nothing to do with it. What makes film survive is $, not words. If it is profitable, it will survive. If not, then accept it and move on. 

Personally, I don't follow film much. I worked with film for +/- 36 years then switched to digital. So, I don't know what the current status is with film. Yes, I still work with film almost daily within the archive. But it is all old archival material. I'd tell you to chart how film is doing. Is the overall picture generally getting better or getting worse? Then report back to us.

It is kinda funny though. What do you film shooters do as soon as your film is developed? You digitize it!

 

 

 

[Daniel D. Teoli Jr.]

35 minutes ago, David Mullen ASC said:

Since gelatin is a byproduct of the meat industry, it is very, very cheap to buy compared to some synthetic versions, which exist but apparently aren't as good either.

The $$ thing with film is the silver. 

[Jeff Bernstein]

FILM STRIPS

[Jeff Bernstein]

[Brandon Paterno]

3 hours ago, David Mullen ASC said:

Since gelatin is a byproduct of the meat industry, it is very, very cheap to buy compared to some synthetic versions, which exist but apparently aren't as good either.

yeah, and the plant location (upstate ny) likely means gelatin is in excess if anything…

[Aapo Lettinen]

I would rather have the gelatin in film stock than in food if have to choose, it is pretty disgusting stuff 😅

[Karim D. Ghantous]

9 hours ago, David Mullen ASC said:

Since gelatin is a byproduct of the meat industry, it is very, very cheap to buy compared to some synthetic versions, which exist but apparently aren't as good either.

Polyester versions of some films could be a good idea, because it's a thinner base. For photographers, especially wedding photographers, it would work. For movie cameras, probably not, AFAIK, due to the fact that film bases can't be too strong, otherwise they damage the camera mechanisms. It's better for film to break than for the camera to break.

[Joerg Polzfusz]

Then why did at least 3M/Ferrania, Fuji and Kodak release PET-based camera filmstocks in the past? Yes, it was only for 8mm Type S, but…

[Joerg Polzfusz]

(The answer is probably that non-PET is cheaper.)

[Aapo Lettinen]

PET is much thinner so one can fit more of it on a same size spool/roll. It is pretty handy to have over 40 meters of film on a Bolex 100ft daylight spool for example.

PET is fine with lower cost cameras. Would not use with Arri SR or Aaton or 416 but on cameras like Bolex, Krasnogorsk, Konvas it is perfect

[Simon Wyss]

Lots of false things here

Photographic gelatine must be much purer than edible gelatine. The Eastman-Kodak Company once had its own cattle in Argentina only for film. No byproduct

Polyester webs are cheaper than triacetate low-shrinkage foils.

Polyester-base film of half thickness (0,068 mm) has successfully been run through an Arriflex 35 BL II and a Paillard-Bolex H-16 S-5 many years ago. The same stock has also been used for making contact duplicates of badly shrunken 16-mm. camera originals. A 35-mm., well, rather 33 mm, nitrate print has been contact duplicated onto PETP-base microfilm with success. Unfortunately these materials are no longer manufactured.

The initial Mylar thin-base films made by Du Pont in 1950 were not well received by the industry, discontinued after three years. Those were coated on a 2.5 mil foil. Since 1955 Du Pont made so-called paper-thin black-and-white films on 4 mil Cronar.