Jump to content

Is the use of film redundant?


James Gough

Recommended Posts

Ira Goldman said: "I can understand the need for transparency when it comes to the identity of people on these forums, especially when the guilds are paying close attention to what is being said, and how people are discussing their work, but to enforce it, i find it hard to believe that the forum moderators would spend all this time in doing so, especially for such a needless imposition on people who are doing nothing "disrespectful" but asking harmless questions on legitimate topics, unless that person on the message board was causing problems."

 

I should say I'm not a moderator, I'm just doing the same as many other members do and reminding new people that this particular forum has a rule about using real names. As mentioned CML has this rule (and is much tougher about enforcing the rules), DVinfo and REDUser also have a similar rule. You can say quite a few things in this forum that you aren't allowed in other forums, so there is quite a lot of freedom here.

 

what can you say on here that you can't in other forums? corporate disparagement? because they're on product forums?

 

i'm not here to waste your time or split hairs. in any case, i understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So. Film. Are we entering a new era? should we expect a resurgence of Celluloid?

 

the preservation of film would mean more people would keep their jobs. the labs, the processing, the telecine, stock shops, camera shops, rental places, they won't need to buy digital cameras, even if film is more invovled and cumbersome at times, the people of the industry would be protected somewhat.

 

the technology is at an adolescence, we might see improvement, opinions are polar to say the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the preservation of film would mean more people would keep their jobs. the labs, the processing, the telecine, stock shops, camera shops, rental places, they won't need to buy digital cameras, even if film is more invovled and cumbersome at times, the people of the industry would be protected somewhat.

 

the technology is at an adolescence, we might see improvement, opinions are polar to say the least.

I think aside from the obvious loss of jobs if we lose film as a medium, is what happens to digital copies of works? hard drives have a much shorter lifespan than celluloid film. What happens to our data when it becomes obsolete in the next 10-15 years? We may gain film industry jobs in the management and updating of data to try to preserve it in order to live out its copyright lifetime. We have definitely seen new jobs come into the picture with digital Cinema. DIT's, Media Managers, Visualization specialists. I think digital is just another tool in the cinematographers toolbox. The industry will find a way to tell the story, and the money men will find a way to keep a good story around to reach its full profit potential. I don't think film is done yet. I think digital has raised the bar for film makers to be innovative but film is not a dinosaur yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Early film didn't keep very well either.

 

I'm not sure if I'm qualified to provide an overview of this, but then again I'm not sure who is. So, in an attempt to drag this back on topic, a few observations, beginning with a few of the most cripplingly obvious:

 

- There is now only one manufacturer in the world making camera negative stocks, and that manufacturer is currently bankrupt. Although Kodak is likely to emerge from this situation and continue making camera negative film stock for at least the short term, that's a pretty precarious position for any medium to be in.

 

- Even before this happened, the mainstream use of film had dropped to unprecedentedly low levels, more or less solely for cost reasons.

 

- It is probably not possible for film to seriously challenge the price/performance ratio of digital alternatives, at least without major new chemistries being developed or production happening somewhere cheaper. There is no evidence that new, non-silver chemistry is being researched, although it's not impossible that a cheap-labour jurisdiction may start producing negative stocks with existing chemistry which would still be cheaper. Even so, the cost of processing and transfer probably still means that film could not compete on price.

 

- Digital alternatives are now more than good enough that they do not seriously limit creativity.

 

Based on the above, I think it's reasonable to conclude that film origination is not going to regain any serious market share in the short to medium term, and it's unlikely ever to do so, regardless of what anyone would like. So far, so obvious.

 

The question is whether film, particularly colour negative, and related support serivces are going to continue to be available in any form at all, at least beyond the medium term. The continued existence of places like Ilford suggest that there is enough of a total world market to support some sort of manufacturing industry, but it's notable that Ilford do not make colour stock. Film stock manufacturing, particularly colour, is complicated and highly reliant on precise process control.

 

So the real issue, the core problem, is whether the post-digital market for colour negative in motion picture formats will be enough to support its continued manufacture. I don't think it's impossible, I also don't think it's inevitable, and while we can argue about it all night I don't think anyone really knows at this point.

 

Is that a reasonable precis?

 

 

P

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I think China is the best hope for a sustainable (and potentially thriving) film industry (film as in literal, not as in Hollywood)

 

Not that they have shown any interest in it but they could do great things considering their lack of regard for fair wages, the environment, etc. We all claim to be sympathetic to the first world ideals but yet we all continue to buy cheap Chinese stuff. If WalMart can exist and thrive, why cant I enjoy buying cheap film from China?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Once 30 per cent owned by Kodak, their websites are now buried with an army of clay soldiers.

 

I know they dont sell film, hence the statement "Not that they have shown any interest in it" but I was giving an if. Since China keeps costs down for everything else, Im sure they could with film also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Since China keeps costs down for everything else, Im sure they could with film also.

 

 

Apparently, they didn't, or at least not to the satisfaction of China Aerospace...

 

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/731381.shtml

 

http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Lucky_film

 

http://english.cntv.cn/program/newsupdate/20120910/106503.shtml

 

http://www.luckyfilm.com.cn/html/MasterSite/EN/index.html

 

They used to make 35mm print stock, the stills films they still carry are probably stock on hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where can one find information about that?

 

we make trips out there to buy up certain stocks when they have sales, and ship them airmail to the US. you have to be careful on what courier you use, if they don't pack them right, they get ruined.

 

but you're talking about 1/4 price of the stuff here. worth it if you're shooting a feature and you need like, 50k feet of film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think China is the best hope for a sustainable (and potentially thriving) film industry (film as in literal, not as in Hollywood)

 

You may find that the two are more tied together than you might imagine.

 

We will see!

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last time that you or your co-workers bought really cheap film stock from Thailand, who or from what company were you buying it from?

 

i can't read or speak thai, we had a thai resident that acted as our guide, one of the focus pullers working on the second hangover movie introduced us to our contact, i wish i knew how to pronounce or read their language--i know that doesn't help you a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But getting back to the question - is the use of film redundant. No - (not yet). It still provides an aesthetic digital can't - least ways in my opinion. Think, vinyl records. The only physical music format where sales are rising. Things will balance out, but film will survive in one form or another.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i can't read or speak thai, we had a thai resident that acted as our guide, one of the focus pullers working on the second hangover movie introduced us to our contact, i wish i knew how to pronounce or read their language--i know that doesn't help you a lot.

There's an off season, sure, but I wouldn't have thought that MP stock in case quantities was a tourist item. In any case, if it's in a freezer you can just hold out for a better price later.

Any limitation as to which stock is available? Perhaps there would be a name in English on the invoice. I'm sure it would help a lot of people here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's an off season, sure, but I wouldn't have thought that MP stock in case quantities was a tourist item. In any case, if it's in a freezer you can just hold out for a better price later.

Any limitation as to which stock is available? Perhaps there would be a name in English on the invoice. I'm sure it would help a lot of people here.

 

I'll ask. I don't remember a single word of English on the packages/invoices except for KODAK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's my belief that film will be very much redundant in the very near future. I recently suggested to a client, a high-street super-chain selling high-end fashion, that we shoot an ad on 35mil as they were after a retro look and they weren't interested. The budget was there but they thought it was "too old-school". So I turned up at the shoot with an iPhone with a shallow depth of field rig and they loved it. The results were great too. Very 35mil. Needless to say they, and I, were happy. So was my bank.

 

In my own personal films I tend to use what ever is best suited to the job. Sometimes it's a 5D, sometimes it's an iphone. What ever I choose I always get the required results. Interesting post though. Looking forward to getting to know the community here.

 

Cheers yeah,

 

Fenn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

So I turned up at the shoot with an iPhone with a shallow depth of field rig and they loved it.

 

This makes me want to rage, seriously. Who in the freakin hell would show up to a pro shoot with an iPhone? Has cinematography fell that far? I would never hire you, Fenn, for that purpose and I hope no one else will either. Nothing personal, but that was really amateur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This makes me want to rage, seriously. Who in the freakin hell would show up to a pro shoot with an iPhone? Has cinematography fell that far? I would never hire you, Fenn, for that purpose and I hope no one else will either. Nothing personal, but that was really amateur.

That doesn't sound like a real name, so I don't think he's being serious, probably just after a reaction.

Edited by Marcus Joseph
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...