Is this true Kodak?

[Tony Brown]

That you lose money on every roll of neg sold, in fact your film profit comes solely from release prints?

 

If this is the case, with more theatres switching to digital projection..... just how long do us neg lovers have left?

[Francesco Bonomo]

That you lose money on every roll of neg sold, in fact your film profit comes solely from release prints?

 

If this is the case, with more theatres switching to digital projection..... just how long do us neg lovers have left?

 

not much....hurry!!!!! :D

 

(sorry, couldn't resist)

 

In the end, reality is far more complex than that, but who cares how much time is left? Even if it's 10 days, 10 months or 10 years away, isn't it better to focus on what's available to us here and now?

[Tony Brown]

but who cares how much time is left? Even if it's 10 days, 10 months or 10 years away, isn't it better to focus on what's available to us here and now?

 

Actually Its better to focus on whats best. HD cannot yet hold a candle to neg and is years from doing so. Market force economics will I fear, win out and neg will be killed off prematurely.

 

Who cares???? What an extraordinary thing to say on this forum. I, and thusands of others care very very much.

[David Mullen ASC]

With a hundred thousand or so movie projectors worldwide, and the average cost of a digital cinema projector being $100,000 compared to a 35mm projector that has probably already paid for itself in movie theaters, many of which are hurting these days to make a profit... well, I wouldn't worry too much about the need for 35mm theatrical prints disappearing too fast.

 

A bigger problem for Kodak is the loss of sales in the consumer still film market -- even though the motion picture division is doing quite well, sales are higher than ever, etc., the drop in the other divisions will have an impact. In some ways, I wonder if the FujiFilm motion picture division is in a better place to weather the storm because their company is more diversified in other technology -- Fuji Corp. may be willing to "subsidize" its motion picture film division longer. On the other hand, Kodak is the big yellow giant and if they ever pull out of making motion picture negative, everyone else might follow their lead.

[Francesco Bonomo]

my post was slightly ironic...anyway...

 

Actually Its better to focus on whats best. HD cannot yet hold a candle to neg and is years from doing so.

 

and the other "news" is that digital projectors are even further away down the road to replace traditional projection.

 

Who cares???? What an extraordinary thing to say on this forum. I, and thusands of others care very very much.

 

thank you for the appreciation of my words, Mr. Brown. Contrary to what you may think, people do care, and i am one of them (I still use my SLR only with b/w negative film), but few actually "worry". As I said before, film is here and now, and has been with us for more than 100 years. When I write "who cares", is just another way to say "we shouln't worry" because (1) film days are not as numbered as some people may think and (2) even if they were, there would be little for us to do to "fight" technological advances.

Edited March 10, 2007 by Francesco Bonomo

[Tony Brown]

. Contrary to what you may think, people do care,

 

Ironic?

 

Ironic that you you say 'contrary to what you think.....' when it was YOU who said "who cares?"

 

I care very much. I also worry as it was a Kodak rep that gave me the information. Digital projection is from the little I've seen of it absolutely superb compared to the 35mm rubbish chomping up cheap release prints at the local multi screens. The streaming technology from central servers is close enough to be very worrying indeed and the new crop of Fuji (I think it was Fuji) digitsl projectors are coming in at £33,000.

 

When the maths doesn't add up for neg, the powers that e will sub the refurb costs without a doubt

 

Dont underestimate the speed and power of the accountants quill my friends

[Francesco Bonomo]

Ironic that you you say 'contrary to what you think.....' when it was YOU who said "who cares?"

 

if you only quote half the sentence you get half the meaning...anyway...

 

Digital projection is from the little I've seen of it absolutely superb compared to the 35mm rubbish chomping up cheap release prints at the local multi screens.

 

I agree.

 

When the maths doesn't add up for neg, the powers that e will sub the refurb costs without a doubt

 

I'm not saying it won't happen, actually I believe it will happen someday, but how many film projectors are there in US, Europe, India and China? The US are the only country that are moving towards digital projection, and even there the numbers are not that impressive yet. Europe is way behind, and countries like China and India, which use a LOT of film, won't replace their projectors for quite a long time.

I'm not arguing with you, because I love film. I just don't get it when people worry about things like this. Isn't it a possible scenario that when eventually ALL projectors will be digital, digital cameras will be as good as film cameras?

 

And, let's just assume that wwe should worry about all of this, what would you do to slow this process down?

[John Pytlak RIP]

Kodak has consolidated all motion picture films to Rochester base making and sensitizing. The base making, sensitizing and finishing equipment in Rochester is state-of-the-art. If anything, efficiencies in making film have occurred due to the consolidation.

 

Kodak is unlikely to build any new base making or film sensitizing lines (original cost was hundreds of millions dollars each), but the equipment we have today is well maintained, and upgraded constantly. There are several active development programs for new motion picture stocks. B)

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I sincerely doubt Kodak make a loss on neg stock. It is, and let's not forget this, very, very expensive, and yet it's made largely out of plastic (plus an absolute gnat's sneeze of silver). Obviously, they're not terribly bothered about losing trade to this; what I suspect is actually going on is that they're jealously guarding the ability to dump the prices when they really have to.

 

Phil

[Kevin Zanit]

I dont know about the figures, but I sure know they probably loose money on every roll of film sold to the type of shows I'm on :P Thanks Kodak for always being generous!

[Leo Anthony Vale]

That you lose money on every roll of neg sold, in fact your film profit comes solely from release prints?

 

If this is the case, with more theatres switching to digital projection..... just how long do us neg lovers have left?

 

I've heard this ages ago about lab processing.

They loose money on the dailies and make up for it on the release prints.

Since print stock costs less than camera stock it makes more sense that that aphorism refers to labs.

Even there I'm doubious. Though a smaller profit margin on dailies makes sense. Set up for printing and timing adds manhours.

[Max Jacoby]

Digital projection is from the little I've seen of it absolutely superb compared to the 35mm rubbish chomping up cheap release prints at the local multi screens.

Not from what I've seen. Black level and contrast on digital projection is appalling and the image looks very flat. Good film projection is still so muhc better.

[Scott Fritzshall]

Not from what I've seen. Black level and contrast on digital projection is appalling and the image looks very flat. Good film projection is still so muhc better.

I agree. The theaters I go to usually have their digital projectors going for the commercials before the film starts, and I would describe their quality as "eh." I guess it's kind of neat to see how far they've come, but they're still (to my eyes at least) not nearly as good as film projection, especially in terms of color reproduction.

[Dominic Case]

The theaters I go to usually have their digital projectors going for the commercials before the film starts

It's very likely that what you have seen is a relatively inexpensive digital projector - typically 1K to 1.3K resolution - with insufficient light to reach 14ftL on the screen. The standard that the material is digitised to is also an unknown factor. You can't take commercials as indicative of the best that digital has to offer.

 

This is generally accepted for advertising, preshow (some trailers) and non-feature content, but falls short of the DCI specifications that are state-of-the-art for studio features. (Although up to a certain screen size, with proper light levels and good encoding, 1.3K or 1.4K projection can be OK - remember that was "state-of-the-art" up until a coupe of years ago.

 

Good film projection is still so much better.

Well yes . . .but you are comparing "Good film projection" with unspecified digital projection. It's not necessarily the case that film projection is always better than digital. (Nor is it the case that all digital projection is "good".)

 

Since print stock costs less than camera stock it makes more sense that that aphorism refers to labs.

Not a good argument. Labs have to buy the print stock, but the camera stock is, and remains, the customer's property. The other difference is the volume: bulk release printing labs print many times more feet than any lab processes of camera negative. But it's a competitive business: margins are microscopic.

[Tony Brown]

Good film projection is still so muhc better.

 

Maybe so, but it certainly doesn't happen in my little corner of SE Blighty :)

 

I'll take a compressed DVD on my very old Panny plasma anyday

[Jan Weis]

Ive never relly experianced bad projection, sure the picture was sometimes out of focus but the audiance usually reacts before the movie starts and someone goes to tell the projectionist. My question is what other types of bad projections are there? Are we talking about a jittery image?

 

 

/Jan

[Max Jacoby]

Maybe so, but it certainly doesn't happen in my little corner of SE Blighty :)

On what far away corner of the earth do you live Tony?

 

Here in London one fortunately has the choice of theatres and I know which ones have good (even outstanding projection). Same for Luxembourg.

 

On the other hand digital projection is very finicky too. I know of one theatre that has it installed on all 10 screens and they are regularly having to shuffle screens because the digital projectors don't work when they're supposed too.

 

Ive never relly experianced bad projection, sure the picture was sometimes out of focus but the audiance usually reacts before the movie starts and someone goes to tell the projectionist. My question is what other types of bad projections are there? Are we talking about a jittery image?

The worst projection I've ever experienced was at the Angelika in NY. The image was soft, there was gate weave (what you call jittery), the brightness of the screen was uneven (the corners fell off) and the anamorphic element was misalingned (rotated slightly)

 

Here in London I do avoid the Prince Charles Cinema (shame, because the prices are very cheap), because the image isn't very good either (gate weave again) and the seats slope away from the screen.

 

I mostly go the Cineworld in West India Quay where they have big screens and projection that generally is very crisp. I saw 'Memoirs of a Geisha' and 'Children of Men' on their biggest screen and that really rocks!

[Tony Brown]

On what far away corner of the earth do you live Tony?

 

I live in Wendover Bucks. I go to the multiplex places at Luton, MK, Watford Aylesbury.... they are all fairly bad. The Art Deco place at Berkhamsted is supposed to be good though its sold out weeks ahead.

 

Theatre 1 at Pinwood was the best for rushes, Theatre 7 where everyone is encouraged to go because they spent a fortune on the seating has terrible projection. Odd that so many features view there rushes there, favouring a comfy sat over a screen thats sharp across its width.

[Max Jacoby]

Theatre 7 where everyone is encouraged to go because they spent a fortune on the seating has terrible projection.

That's where they have these BSC events as well...

[Andy_Alderslade]

That's where they have these BSC events as well...

 

Tempted to plug the Riverside Studios who I occationaly work for.... they have the best screen for academy in all of London, they also have a nice seating pitch and you can take beer in there too!

 

But back to the Digital/Film Projection issue, Digital Projectors are still notorious for breaking down - and exactly when you don't want them to - plus the projectionist can't do much when it happens - well except cry. 35mm projectors do break down to, but its suprisingly simple to tinker with it to get it working again - and if you're running of a twin-projector system if the worse comes to the worse you can always make the film up on large reels and run it of one projector, calling an interval half-way to change reels.

 

Obviously its not ideal but the show runs, the amount of times for Filmclubs at uni, or festivals i've been present when a glitch in a DVD or a hard disk drive calls a show to a halt. Que lots of angry patrons.

[Max Jacoby]

But back to the Digital/Film Projection issue, Digital Projectors are still notorious for breaking down - and exactly when you don't want them to - plus the projectionist can't do much when it happens - well except cry.

Quite right, it takes a while to get them fixed. It's always handy to have a filmprint as backup ;)

[Andy_Alderslade]

Quite right, it takes a while to get them fixed. It's always handy to have a filmprint as backup ;)

 

On my Film Studies degree at UKC the lectures would often have a VHS copy playing while showing a film of DVD, because they had so many problems with scratched DVDs stoping and refusing to play. Luckily most the time they used to bring in 35mm prints.

 

Another time I remember when I was working at a screening of some youth films when towards the end the sound just cut out on the DVD, I was like why didn't you just play it off miniDV, if it goes wrong it keeps playing. It wasn't to bad though all the kids in the audience decided to provide their own dialougue!

 

Of course these are just domestic/amature formats, but these problems are present in the proffesional equipment too.

Edited March 13, 2007 by Andy_Alderslade

[Tony Brown]

Quite right, it takes a while to get them fixed. It's always handy to have a filmprint as backup ;)

 

 

Yes fair point..... the digital stuff I saw was in a small theatre (screen maybe 20 x 12) but it did look fantastic... they showed some scenes from Lawrence of Arabia, JFK and some BBC High Def wildlife nonsense and a little Super 16. It was all extremely impressive except the Super 16 which I detest anyway......

 

I never get to (cant be arsed to go to) the big theatres in London where the primary release prints go to so maybe I'm not being overly fair on 35mm throws. The worst projection I ever saw was a bad print of the (poor anyway) Cold Mountain in Santa Monica.

[Nate Downes]

The market sence for electronic distribution only works for manufacturers and distributors, not for theatres. At the theatrical level, there's little incentive to switch. Why shell out $100,000 for a new digital when you can continue running the same projector you've had since the 1970's instead, and have the distributors paying for the prints?

 

If I was a theatre owner, digital projection would not even be an option. You're talking over 2 million dollars for the local megaplex, and that's 2 million every 3 years as that is the average lifespan of these DLP systems. Compared to a 35mm projector built in 1974..... which needs less than $7,000 a year to operate?

[Andy_Alderslade]

It was all extremely impressive except the Super 16 which I detest anyway......

 

You detest a whole format!?

 

I never get to (cant be arsed to go to) the big theatres in London...

 

I know some DPs who will insist that their tests for features are screened in the big theatres in London - I guess the rule is if it looks good on the Odeon Leicter Square screen, it will look good on all the smaller screens in the country.