Jump to content

What if KODAK stops manufacturing FILM?


Rajavel Olhiveeran
 Share

Recommended Posts

So writing and actor performances are the only things that make a film good?

 

 

Even if that were true, shooting digitally helps those things to be better.

 

You can shoot more takes with your actors, which doesn't always mean it will be better, but it definitely helps. Some actors don't really get rolling with a scene until it's been done a few times, and on a low budget film, you can usually only afford like 2-3 takes of a performance shot on film. And if you're shooting digitally, you can not only shoot more takes, you can experiment with your performances, and get your actors to try things differently, and give you a different range of emotions, or even try improvising a take or two.

 

You can experiment with your shots as well...trying really longs takes, or trying elaborate camera moves that might take several takes to pull off. You can playback a take to see if you really got it...with film you have to just hope it was good and wait until you get your dailies to know for sure. If you playback the take and notice a problem, you can do it again and get it right. I would consider little advantages like that to be helping make your film better. There are tons of examples like that.

 

I couldn't disagree with you more!

 

I have seen from personal experience that film disciplines the crew and cast on a low budget shoot especially. Of course no one really takes it seriously when you can do endless takes thanks to the cheap nature of memory cards or tape stock. Directors shooting film are far more meticulous in planning their shots, and actors are far better prepared when they know they'll only have 2-3 takes to nail a scene due to film costs.

 

I'm one who has made and sold low budget movies, both shot on 35mm. Both movies owe a large part of their distribution success to the fact that they where shot on 35mm, and the radiating impact this had on every other aspect of the film.

 

My next project is slated for 35mm as well, I wouldn't even consider any other shooting format.

 

In the low budget film world, digital will ultimately lead to lower quality product, not higher. In the 100 million+ world the shooting format is less of an issue as the price of the film stock is a moot point.

 

I find it very odd how a majority of the under 30 crowd in this board are constantly celebrating the demise of film as if that will mean the older generation will be pushed out of the way and we can all experience this great new "vision" from the younger crowd. Ain't gonna happen. The gates of Hollywood won't open to anyone just because they now have a RED or Alexa.

 

If the shooting format is so un-important I don't understand why the entire TV and film world doesn't just switch to shooting on iPhones right now? I mean if you want flexibility and low cost, you can't beat the iPhone!

 

I am told over and over again by digital people that the audience doesn't care, so just use your iPhone and be done with it then. Why do you even need an expensive RED camera when you can get an iPhone for cheap?

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well really the most important thing is lenses....you can't put cinema glass on a crappy little camera/iphone so that's the biggest reason why you don't use cheap cameras. The camera itself is just the brain, and any good quality digital camera (Alexa, RED etc.) with good lenses will match 35MM. It's not that the shooting format is unimportant, it's that the highest quality digital cameras and 35MM are so similar in image quality that the difference in those particular formats is fairly unimportant. When people say audiences don't know the difference, that's when we're talking about these high-end cameras. Audiences do know when they're watching something filmed on a cheap camera. They don't know why, but they know it doesn't look like the higher quality productions they've seen.

 

I agree that crews can be more disciplined, and actors/directors can be more prepared...but not significantly enough to outweigh the many benefits digital has to offer. You can be just as well prepared, and take each take just as seriously...as long as you are aware of this problem with shooting digital and make a conscious effort take as much care as you would when shooting film. And I forgot to mention how many more shots can be completed in a day with digital compared to film, which is another huge cost thing. I've shot some stuff that literally would not have been possible, or never would have been done in the 2-3 days we had to shoot if we shot film. You could say that the quality would be diminished with shooting faster, too...but that isn't always the case...and if so, it's not necessarily significant enough to make it worth shooting film.

 

It's really a matter of weighing pros and cons....And while there are definitely valid pros for shooting film, like some of the ones you mentioned, I feel that Film's pros are vastly outweighed by Digital's pros.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[/size]

If they save time, hassle and money enough that you can put more resources and attention into writing and acting, yes.

P

 

I suppose, if the freed up money is in fact re-directed to getting better actors or more experienced writer. Usually the money is simply absorbed by the producer, or the distribution advances are lowered. So it becomes six of one half dozen of the other.

 

My point, as I know you know, is that a digital camera in and of itself does not improve the work in any other aspect of a film production.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well really the most important thing is lenses....you can't put cinema glass on a crappy little camera/iphone so that's the biggest reason why you don't use cheap cameras. The camera itself is just the brain, and any good quality digital camera (Alexa, RED etc.) with good lenses will match 35MM. I

 

Rich: David took your sarcasm seriously!

 

 

It's interesting you talk about "cheap" as a bad thing when it comes to price spent on camera, but then argue that film is too expensive. It's interesting the projects I've been on where equipment rental with digital has actually ended up costing MORE (though admittedly not usually case, people don't bother to do a budget comparison. . . I have).

 

Don't be so hard on the 25-30s Rich. Some are film diehards, just like us, in SPITE of the massive barage of digiital revolution garbage they've been bombareded with since early childhood. My favorite? "OF COURSE IT"S BETTER IT'S DIGITAL"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it was John Waters who pointed out that you can't get a much cheaper means of production than a pencil and paper and yet the 20th century didn't produce a single Shakespeare.

 

Cheaper does not equal better although I find it interesting that David completely contradicted himself when he said digital was cheaper and allowed better storytelling and then the next post described a hellish onset situation where a DP and/or director "let the actors get on a roll" with 8 or 9 or 10 takes and then experiment with long shots, short shots, experimental shots etc. Time is money on a set, who is going to pay for all that "jacking off" with the digital camera? And then there's the extra hours you're going to be paying the editor to sort through the countless hours of footage.

 

Nevermind that kind of environment would just wear everybody out and kill their creativity.

 

I was just on a digital shoot for a short movie this past weekend and I didn't find it cheaper and I certainly didn't find it more convenient. Actually, I had to go through many "That's perfect! but just one more to be sure." "Ok, good, one more to be sure." And that doesn't include the 3-5 takes before we get to perfect.

 

Contrary to popular belief, Kubrick was not a maniac for lots of takes for each shot. In an interview for "Full Metal Jacket" he said he prefered to get each shot in the fewest takes. It was only when the actor was unprepared that he had to take 9 or 10 or more takes. Prepared actors usually only required 1-3 takes. So I don't understand this hard on from Digital proponents for thousands of extra unecessary takes. If Kubrick didn't think it was necessary.....

 

Anyways, as I stated in my last post on this subject, it shouldn't be a zero sum game and it shouldn't be brainwashing marketing "get with the cool kids" with one medium losing out to the other. Film and digital should be viable together and offer storytellers choice.

 

The argument that digital is more convenient and cheaper is pure BS. Just pick the medium that best suits your story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I guess Kodak as a company is undergoing a tough time in the market. The company might

rework its logistics and the business model and survive or even thrive but What happens

if Kodak stops manufacturing Film for the Movies?"

 

I try to talk regularly to friends of mine who are well positioned in the film industry

as often as possible about the estimated date of the demise of film. Because I am a film

lover.

 

In spite of the fact that 4-perf 35mm film is the most cost-effective method of acquisition

for narrative films at the current time (according to a Sr. manager at Panavision

Woodland Hills) there is one dynamic which is going to dramatically affect the

future of film negative.

 

And that is the decree by the LA studios that 35mm release prints will cease to exist

sometime next year, if I have read ASC members John Bailey's blog correctly. Considering

that the sheer volume of release prints that Kodak manufactures far exceeds their negative

manufacturing volume, I fear the writing is on the wall. The economic pressure to

discontinue film will become great at that time, and it should get relegated to only small

niche companies.

 

I hope John Holland is correct when he says Fuji will continue making film for many

years. But when I pressed Alan Albert of Clairmont Camera about the estimated time frame

for the labs to start shutting down the 35mm color processors, he felt that these events

were about 2 to 3 years away at the longest.

 

I then spoke to an Arri sales rep at CineGear this summer and he optimistically told

me film probably had 5 to 6 years left. I am inclined to believe that Alan Albert is

probably closer to the actual date in his estimation.

 

I own two Arris, a 16BL and a 35BL-1 and I don't anticipate using them again after

next year. If anyone else has a more optimistic forecast, I'd love to hear it.

 

 

-Jerry Murrel

 

CineVision AR

Little Rock

Link to comment
Share on other sites

exactly

 

 

 

 

In the end, what i was trying to say, is that technology matters relatively very little when all is said and done. If you're good, you're good, if you're not, you're not, regardless of the tools.

 

my photography guru, an iconoclast who doesn't mince words, once gave me the low down on my apparent fetish for high- technology in camera gear. he observed that even an ape from borneo will quickly learn to press the right buttons if i thrust a gizmo of a camera into its prehensile grip. it's my sensibilities, volume of life experience that i've drunk, as interpreted through my intuitive visual instincts that's gonna make me succeed as a cinematographer ! wow, how true ! thanks frank, rajkumar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kodak has all sorts of problems, we shouldn't see film's future as just tied with Kodak, though Kodak the major player in traditional film and the world will certainly look different without Kodak. There a lots of companies that make film, most in South East Asia and lots of people use film. In recent years a lot of big American shows have started using digital, this is a cultural change, but a lot of shows still use film and new ones are using film too, and almost all commercials use film. This is an American cultural change only and it's to do with economics, creativity and politics and it affects Kodak USA most of all.

 

I am from India where television uses digital and the film industry uses a lot of film Kodak 35mm, they produce well over 800 features a year and these feature get to parts of the country where there isn't even electricity, the digital revolution that's sweeping the US is not affecting the entire world in the same way. The role of film is changing.

 

P

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure If you search the net you'll find them. Why can't people just stop predicting the end of film? A few changes within the US industry not mean that the whole world will change. I have been hearing that film is dead since the early 1980's, and it's still here alive and looking great. Digital is great it's constantly evolving, film is great and changing all the time, filmmakers need all the tools they can in this creative but competitive industry. Economically it's a bad time and Kodak is facing all the problems that almost every other large company is, maybe one of its problems is that it's too big.

 

P

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member

[/size]

If they save time, hassle and money enough that you can put more resources and attention into writing and acting, yes.

P

 

 

If they save time, hassle, and money, the producers will just give you less time and less money. Guess what they'll give you more of.... ;-)

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member

I think it was John Waters who pointed out that you can't get a much cheaper means of production than a pencil and paper and yet the 20th century didn't produce a single Shakespeare.

 

Don't be so hard on the 20th. Neither did the 17th, 18th, or 19th. (He was 36 at the end of the 16th century.)

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prices on 16mm cameras are dropping fast. A bargain today may be a foolish investment to the buyer in three months.

 

What the hell do I know? I just dropped $240 on a Super8 camera and will likely spend $100 getting is serviced and later, $500 for crystal sync. B)

 

Would you not consider 16mm then? I expect you could get an eclair NPr for about $1000 and it would already be crystal? Super8 definitely has its own look tho and is VERY cool. It's also way easier to cart around a S8 camera than an NPR and the NPR is a lighter camera! Swings and roundabouts! Depends what you are doing!

 

love

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There probably hasn't been any significant profit from S8 since 1983.

 

You would think so wouldn't you, but a recent article I saw mentioned that the motion picture side of Kodaks business made up 90% of the profit of the company at present and they actually mentioned Super8 as a part of that. It could be that S8 still makes profit and that profit has become more significant as the rest of Kodak has gone the way of all things.

 

Also there has been some growth in the use of S8 away from the traditional home movie market.

 

I was very surprised tho!

 

love

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

to use. Certainly I have no time for the rather self-important and gushing artist whose work currently graces the turbine hall at the Tate Modern, who described film as "completely different" as an artform.

 

As a technical approach? Of course it is. But as an artform, sorry, no. You're being overwrought. It is very fractionally different as an artform in ways most people wouldn't even understand, let alone be able to visually identify, or you're doing it wrong.

 

So of course there is nostalgia for a complex technical process and I have sympathy for the jobs that have been lost and will yet be lost as a result of the end of film. But is it going to completely change filmmaking? No, of course not, it's going to save some producers some money.

 

P

 

Okay I have held off as I suspect this post may be Freya bait but I finally bit! ;)

 

How much have you seen in the way of so called "artists film" Phil? Firstly there are a lot of those films which would be impossible to make on video at all! Certainly if a new digital process was made to try and emulate them, the results would be VERY different.

 

Also the process is as you point out very different but artists have a big thing about process. It's considered really important to art and is one of the things they go on about a lot in art schools whether it is painting or drawing or anything, the process is considered very important.

 

Lastly the process does affect the outcome in all kinds of other ways too. When I am editing a film by hand with a splicer, I make very different cuts than I do when I'm using an NLE and hence end up with very different films.

 

Anyway, all that aside, have you seen the Tacita Dean exhibition yet? She has a film showing in a gallery up here and I have to say I have watched it many times. I keep going back to press the little green button and have the projector whir into action. Theres something just so beautiful about watching a real film print! The actual film is quite good too although I would have edited it very differently but that adds to the interest to me. To be honest I'm not over excited by the work I have seen by Tacita so far, I prefer the much underated art of Emily Richardson, but that's art for you.

I'd be interested to hear what you think of the Turbine Hall exhibition.

 

Personally I'd love to pop down and see it myself. I figure it has to be interesting from the point of view of it being 35mm anamorphic projected sideways. I expect it will be VERY dramatic in terms of scale, and I would hope I would get that special feeling you get from a film print projection. As to the actual content of the film itself... Hmmm, should be at least interesting in some way! ;)

 

love

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member

I don't see why everyone is so resistant to just accept that film is dying? Things change. Technology gets better. New tools become available that are designed to make us better storytellers.

 

The complaint is not so much that film is dying, rather the f*ckwit notion that keeps getting endlessly regugitated, that the demise of film is suddenly going to make it possible for any talentless retard with a credit card to make cinema-quality movies. Of course this is mostly just verbal rod-whalloping on the part of barstool producers and other complete loser-wannabes trying to talk their way into similarly would-be actresses' pants, but it still can influence those whose only techniocal knowledge is how to write out cheques! :(

 

There are people out there who actually need to make a living in this industry, and they need to be able to get up to speed with whatever new technological challenges that are thrown at them for whatever reason.

Just the facts ma'am!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member

And that is the decree by the LA studios that 35mm release prints will cease to exist

sometime next year, if I have read ASC members John Bailey's blog correctly.

I have to call "codswhallop" on that statement. Ronald Perelman paid an enormous amount of money for Technicolor a few years back, and he has a very long track record for refusing to let his bad purchases die a natural death. Such things have been decreed before, nothing ever came of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


Forum Sponsors

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Film Gears

Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post

Glidecam

Serious Gear

DMX-iT

FJS International

CineLab

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...