Future of film?

Marco Leavitt · December 15, 2004

After doing a lot of reading, I'm persuaded that film is still the clear choice for a project hoping for a theatrical release. Even so, it's clear that the number of people shooting film are only going to decrease as time goes on. Anyone care to speculate on whether this will drive film prices up (production less efficient because of reduced volume) or down (Kodak gets increasingly desperate to keep people shooting film and starts practically giving the stuff away). I suspect that during my lifetime film will always be available to people who want it badly enough, I just don't know if I'm going to be able to afford it. Prices can't rise by much before the cost is out of reach, at least for me. In particular, I'd be interested in hearing people's opinions (wild guesses?) about the future of 16mm. By the way, if you factor in inflation, is film more expensive today or cheaper?

Adam Frisch FSF · December 16, 2004

Make no mistake - Kodak and Fuji makes a LOT of money manufacturing and selling film. That translates into having huge margins they can cut at will to penetrate or sustain markets.

That said, history has shown us that not many film manufacturers have competed much by pricing - I doubt Agfa was much cheaper then Kodak at the end of their era in MP filmstocks.

So why is that? I think it's a cartel, simply. I know for a fact that Chinese film manufacturers manage to sell their film for less than a quarter of Fuji's and Kodak's prices. There simply is no incentive to do so.

Don't expect the prices on film to drop much. Even in a declining market. The only thing that could change that is if a third, new producer would introduce a radically lowered priced film. Like those chinese guys I talked about...

Dominic Case · December 16, 2004

I know for a fact that Chinese film manufacturers manage to sell their film for less than a quarter of Fuji's and Kodak's prices

It's equally true that software manufacturers could sell their software for a fraction of the cost they actually charge - as could digital manufacturers, with their cameras and recorders.

Why are the prices high? It's to pay for development costs. Look at the advances in film emulsions over the past few years: they didn't just happen, any more than the advances in digital hardware and software.

And of course you pay for quality and reliability. Who's going to match that with quarter price stock from anywhere?

With film, you pay for the advances incrementally. One roll of new film stock gives you the latest image technology every time. With a digital camera, you can only access the latest technology with a competely new camera - so most people will be working with less-than-the-latest gear most of the time.

John Pytlak RIP · December 16, 2004

"State-of-the-Art" technology, quality, and customer support ARE important to filmmakers around the world! Chinese filmmakers use lots of Kodak motion picture film. China is also one of the largest markets for Kodak CONSUMER films, despite availability of cheaper films. Even in 1987, when I visited China and Hong Kong for an ISO TC36 Cinematography meeting and to give seminars on laboratory technology, Kodak film was used for most of the "high end" productions.

Adam Frisch wrote:

I think it's a cartel, simply.

I strongly disagree with you! Kodak and Fuji are formidible competitors, as is Agfa. Agfa-Gevaert is still a worldwide competitor in the motion picture print film and sound negative markets. And electronic production has been a competitor to film production for decades.

Edited December 16, 2004 by John_P_Pytlak

Adam Frisch FSF · December 16, 2004

Yes, Dominic.

You are of course right. It's just good to have alternatives. I think there is a market for an older, grainier but cheaper color film stock. Not everyone is Jerry Bruckheimer. I'm sure those chinese guys would clock up some good sales if they introduced it with BH perfs and ECN-2 compatability..

Right now I'm on a short where we're shooting nothing but re-cans and short ends. I'm mixing every stock there is from Fuji 64D to Kodak 5279. I don't mind, but a cheap stock would have been an alternative to that and probably more consistent. Probably cheaper too, since we'll be spending considerable time in telecine matching stocks up..

Phil Rhodes · December 16, 2004

Hi,

One wonders how the quantities of print, intermediate and other specialist stocks breaks down against camera neg. Surely these huge releases that big films get must consume a large quantity of consumables. Does Kodak get involved in supplying chemistry as well?

Phil

John Sprung · December 17, 2004

Print stock is by far the biggest volume. A feature may typically shoot a 20:1 ratio and make 5000 release prints. That's 250 ft. of print stock for every foot of camera negative. Figure two or three IP's and a few dozen IN's.

-- J.S.

GeorgeSelinsky · December 17, 2004

I've thought of the idea of importing foreign filmstock, but it's just too much of a bother and the cost reduction won't be that dramatic I think after you calculate the cost of getting it into the hands of the consumer.

I mean, I would rather shoot on older emulsion designs if that meant the difference between shooting film and tape for a certain project. But I've never seen a situation where the price of filmstock (comparing apples to apples, i.e. factory fresh with factory fresh) was significantly lower (i.e. Fuji) that it made the breaking difference.

Of course if I could shoot this Chinese stock at $0.15/ft new (and if we're to calculate short ends I can imagine it going for $0.025/ft for short ends), it would be quite a savings. That said, the processing still costs the same (assume ECN-2 compatibility) and so does the transfer. I don't know if I'd bother with it, especially when you consider it is most likely quite an inferior emulsion with bad batch stability (meaning you gotta test each batch), etc...

- G.

Edited December 17, 2004 by GeorgeSelinsky

Phil Rhodes · December 17, 2004

Hi,

It's not the stock that kills it for me, it's the transfer.

I guess on the other hand I do have more or less free access to 35 and 16 projection, so perhaps I should just project the damn stuff!

Phil

Edited December 17, 2004 by Phil Rhodes

David Mullen ASC · December 17, 2004

Maybe it's unavoidable, but I'd hate to see a Wal-Mart-ization of movie film, where eventually everyone has to move production of stock to China to compete with each other.

Jeff Tanner · December 17, 2004

Maybe it's unavoidable, but I'd hate to see a Wal-Mart-ization of movie film, where eventually everyone has to move production of stock to China to compete with each other.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Amen.

Jeff Tanner

John Pytlak RIP · December 17, 2004

Although Kodak does manufacture high quality CONSUMER films and cameras in China, all the professional motion-picture films are manufactured either in the United States or France.