Jump to content

Bold prediction: film will become cheaper in the medium to long term


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Bro, I have been buying silver for years. Find the nearest exit and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. 

Sorry Bro , your not getting the last word .. the fact that you have been buying silver for years makes no difference to the fact its a commodity that changes price by seconds  and its price is very important to Kodak .. both of which you seem to think is not the case ..   your just plain wrong man ..  stop talking out of your ass ..  

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A year ago the forum predictions were Oprah or Michelle Obama would be President.

Last month the forum claimed as facts were the Pope was arrested for running a child porno ring, Trump had committed suicide, Joe Biden had committed suicide, Hunter Biden had committed suicide and Trump had ordered the military to arrest some such ring of conspirators that stole the election.

A couple weeks ago the fact was China is invading Taiwan. 

I've been on forums since 1998. As I said...99% of the predictions are BS.  And a lot of the 'facts' turn out to be fake news as well. But once in a while they may pay off. Like in the gambling run on GameStop. 

Edited by Daniel D. Teoli Jr.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
10 hours ago, Stuart Brereton said:

I’d much rather have Robin’s contributions than your incessant lies. It should be you that finds the exit.

Right, right, whatever bro. You can find the nearest exit anytime you want since you have no skin in this game. 

Edited by Tyler Purcell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
8 hours ago, Robin R Probyn said:

Sorry Bro , your not getting the last word .. the fact that you have been buying silver for years makes no difference to the fact its a commodity that changes price by seconds  and its price is very important to Kodak .. both of which you seem to think is not the case ..   your just plain wrong man ..  stop talking out of your ass ..  

No, that wasn't the conversation Robin, maybe it was last week, but no... the conversation today has shifted to stability of Silver over the long term. Your claim is that it's too volatile, but I claim it's not. I'm the one who has invested because as you can see from all the charts, the price of silver has consistently increased with inflation, making it actually a pretty good investment, outside of recessions like the one we're currently in. 

To your comment tho and this is very important. Silver has had two major spikes in the last 30 years. I have shot film during both of those spikes and ya know what happened to Kodak's pricing? Nothing, zero, nada. Kodak has been raising their prices every few years to coincide with inflation just like every other brand has. Remember, at one point silver was over $50/ounce during the last recession, but Kodak's pricing stayed pretty consistent, few bux here and there. The biggest shift in pricing was actually over the last 5 years, when silver was rising with inflation. 

Since you don't shoot film and probably haven't in decades, you have zero skin in the game. Also, you have no idea what you're talking about, according to my friends who bloody worked there. I wish they'd make accounts and put you in your place, but oh well. Silver is a great investment as it's the only precious metal that has seen some stability in the last 50 years outside of recessions. 

Edited by Tyler Purcell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Right, right, whatever bro. You can find the nearest exit anytime you want since you have no skin in this game. 

I'm not your bro, and I'll leave when I feel like it.

3 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

according to my friends who bloody worked there. 

And where exactly did your make-believe friends work at Kodak? Because unless they were involved with futures trading, their opinion is worth about the same as yours. Nothing.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
14 minutes ago, Stuart Brereton said:

And where exactly did your make-believe friends work at Kodak? Because unless they were involved with futures trading, their opinion is worth about the same as yours. Nothing.

When exactly did you personally buy a roll of motion picture film last? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

No, that wasn't the conversation Robin, maybe it was last week, but no... the conversation today has shifted to stability of Silver over the long term. Your claim is that it's too volatile, but I claim it's not. I'm the one who has invested because as you can see from all the charts, the price of silver has consistently increased with inflation, making it actually a pretty good investment, outside of recessions like the one we're currently in. 

To your comment tho and this is very important. Silver has had two major spikes in the last 30 years. I have shot film during both of those spikes and ya know what happened to Kodak's pricing? Nothing, zero, nada. Kodak has been raising their prices every few years to coincide with inflation just like every other brand has. Remember, at one point silver was over $50/ounce during the last recession, but Kodak's pricing stayed pretty consistent, few bux here and there. The biggest shift in pricing was actually over the last 5 years, when silver was rising with inflation. 

Since you don't shoot film and probably haven't in decades, you have zero skin in the game. Also, you have no idea what you're talking about, according to my friends who bloody worked there. I wish they'd make accounts and put you in your place, but oh well. Silver is a great investment as it's the only precious metal that has seen some stability in the last 50 years outside of recessions. 

ok lets narrow it down ..(I was never questioning precious metals as a worthy investment for the long term).. you still claim ,based on the knowledge yet again of mysterious " friends" that Kodak has no or little  concern about the price of Silver ..thius non volatile commodity .. . this is your position correct .. so the Kodak guy who spoke to David Mullen , who we can agree is an established DP, was lying through his teeth when he wouldn't even give any causal information about Silver, due to a worry about the effects on price .. or David has just totally made up this story ? Yes I haven't shot film for many years ,what is the relevance of that .. or the fact that you do .. I mean you make all sorts of claims about digital cameras with very little clue of how they work , Ive brought 6 pro video cameras costing well over $300K, yet you are not accepting  I know more about them than you ..when all you have is a pocket camera that cost less than my mattbox  ..surely this proves I know much more about digital than you ..  following your logic .. no ?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
3 hours ago, Stuart Brereton said:

That's completely irrelevant.

No, it's completely relevant. If you have no skin in the game, the only thing you're after is a debate about something you have no skin in the game about. 

3 hours ago, Stuart Brereton said:

I'll repeat my question. In what role did your "friends" work at Kodak? Presumably, you are able to answer this.

One of my friends was in sales, the other worked on the factory floor. Neither one have anything to do with the purchasing of silver. The only reason I mention them is because when I've talked about it in the past with them, for reasons I legally can't get into, they have both told me internally pricing of silver has no consequence to Kodak as reflected in the pricing. 

That is my only point here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
3 hours ago, Robin R Probyn said:

ok lets narrow it down ..(I was never questioning precious metals as a worthy investment for the long term).. 

Are you kidding me? That's all you've been saying! Volatile assets are NOT good investments. SO if it's a good investment than its NOT volatile. 

Quote

you still claim ,based on the knowledge yet again of mysterious " friends" that Kodak has no or little  concern about the price of Silver ..thius non volatile commodity .. . this is your position correct .. so the Kodak guy who spoke to David Mullen , who we can agree is an established DP, was lying through his teeth when he wouldn't even give any causal information about Silver, due to a worry about the effects on price .. or David has just totally made up this story ?

I know what people tell me and I also know based on the cost of the medium. A simple "No, silver prices have no effect as reflected in our pricing" is believable. If silver prices DID have an effect, then you would have seen precipitous increases in costs during the last bump right? But there was NO increase in cost during that bump, in fact the pricing of film didn't really go up much until very recently, long after the last recession AND the prices of silver stabilized. So the proof is right there, I don't even need to have corroboration from anyone on the inside, but I do, which makes it all the more relevant. 

I will repeat again, the increase in silver prices, have not effected the cost of motion picture film.  

Kodaks pricing increases have been directly correlated to lack of demand. They are a very strange business and without getting into a long winded discussion, they treat film like eggs and if they didn't, the pricing could be far more stable in my opinion. 

Quote

Yes I haven't shot film for many years ,what is the relevance of that ..


Because you would know; " the increase in silver prices, have not effected the cost of motion picture film." 

Thus, there would be no conversation to have. 

Quote

 I mean you make all sorts of claims about digital cameras with very little clue of how they work 

You say this because I complain about shitty Sony cameras that I'm forced to use? If you were forced to use something you didn't like, would you praise that product if it was a piece of junk? Also, last time I checked, you didn't have to edit (import/transcode/tag) and personally color stuff you shot. So honestly you know WAY less then I do about digital cameras and how they work. I'm stuck all day taking shit people like you shot with garbage cameras and turning it into gold. Then I get complaints when it's not perfect and they blame me, not the shitty camera. 

Mind you, I've EDITED AND SHOT with; C100, C300MKII C500, EVA1, Alexa Classic, Amira, Mini, Dragon, Epic, Red One, F5, F55, FS7, Blackmagic Pocket 4k and 6k, UMP 4.5k, GH5, GH5S, A7SMKII, F900, Vericam 24p. Plus footage shot with most of the cameras I document below. 

And you're telling ME that I have no idea how they work?  You're a funny guy. 
 

Quote

Ive brought 6 pro video cameras costing well over $300K,

Honestly how smart is that? The reason why most people don't own EXPENSIVE NEW cameras is because the moment you open the box, you're devaluing instantly. It's sometimes worse than owning a car. At least with a car, you can keep it for 7-10 years and still have SOME value. I've seen people lose their shirts financially on expensive cameras because they buy them when they have work, then they get injured or they have a life change and can't shoot. The bills stack up fast and they can't sell it for what it's worth because it's been 2 years and the value has tanked. The other reason why it's not smart to own expensive cameras is because if something were to happen on set, you'd have to provide another package immediately. It's far easier to simply pay for the production to rent cameras and have a backup at the ready so if anything happens, you can get one shipped out next day. 

Now I have a lot of expensive film equipment, but I bet my total investment is around $20k. I got great deals on everything because I have no need to have the fanciest/newest stuff. Current value of everything I have is probably around $50k and going up by the month. I bring home around $1k a month in rentals on average and I provide full services round trip for my clients, which I profit off of as well. So for a $20k investment, I sit on my ass doing nothing and bring in around $2k a month on average. I then learned how to fix those cameras, so I wouldn't have to pay for a technician and in my spare time (which is basically every moment of every day thanks to covid) I can sit back enjoy my life and write/produce my own content. 

Quote

yet you are not accepting  I know more about them than you ..when all you have is a pocket camera that cost less than my mattbox  ..surely this proves I know much more about digital than you ..  following your logic .. no ?

Pfft, you've owned 6 cameras lol.

Film cameras; Moviecam Compact II, Moviecam Super America, BL4, 535, SRIII, 2C, Aaton LTR, Aaton XTR Prod, 2 Aaton 35III's, 2 Electronic Eyemo's (I had many, but only 2 complete packages)  4008, K3, Bolex EBM. Mind you, I've owned dozens more, (and still do today) but the rest are collectors items, so they don't count. 

Digital cameras; 2 Blackmagic Pocket Cine's, DSR300, DSR570WS, VX1000, 2 PDW-700's, Canon AHX1. 

Analog Video; BVU-100/BVP-350, BVW-5,  BVW-300, EVV-9000. I actually learned how to shoot on a VO-8800 and DXC-325 package, but it wasn't mine.

I've also owned several consumer format cameras like the Canon A1 and a few Video 8, VHS and SuperBeta camcorders. I used video 8 and Hi8 for most of my mucking around at home stuff before buying the DV camcorders. 

So I'm well above 30 cameras and out of those 30, a dozen have made me considerable money. 

So before ya brag about spending $300k because you MUST have the latest and greatest. I'll say, I love guys like you because you take it in the butt and hand me perfectly great cameras a few years later. So thanks for existing, but no I don't want your used FX9 when you go to sell it for whatever comes next. I'll be perfectly happy with my Red Komodo for a while, whenever the prices go down used. I can wait. 

Ohh and PS, I have around $4k worth of matte boxes and filters. 

Edited by Tyler Purcell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Are you kidding me? That's all you've been saying! Volatile assets are NOT good investments. SO if it's a good investment than its NOT volatile. 

I know what people tell me and I also know based on the cost of the medium. A simple "No, silver prices have no effect as reflected in our pricing" is believable. If silver prices DID have an effect, then you would have seen precipitous increases in costs during the last bump right? But there was NO increase in cost during that bump, in fact the pricing of film didn't really go up much until very recently, long after the last recession AND the prices of silver stabilized. So the proof is right there, I don't even need to have corroboration from anyone on the inside, but I do, which makes it all the more relevant. 

I will repeat again, the increase in silver prices, have not effected the cost of motion picture film.  

Kodaks pricing increases have been directly correlated to lack of demand. They are a very strange business and without getting into a long winded discussion, they treat film like eggs and if they didn't, the pricing could be far more stable in my opinion. 


Because you would know; " the increase in silver prices, have not effected the cost of motion picture film." 

Thus, there would be no conversation to have. 

You say this because I complain about shitty Sony cameras that I'm forced to use? If you were forced to use something you didn't like, would you praise that product if it was a piece of junk? Also, last time I checked, you didn't have to edit (import/transcode/tag) and personally color stuff you shot. So honestly you know WAY less then I do about digital cameras and how they work. I'm stuck all day taking shit people like you shot with garbage cameras and turning it into gold. Then I get complaints when it's not perfect and they blame me, not the shitty camera. 

Mind you, I've EDITED AND SHOT with; C100, C300MKII C500, EVA1, Alexa Classic, Amira, Mini, Dragon, Epic, Red One, F5, F55, FS7, Blackmagic Pocket 4k and 6k, UMP 4.5k, GH5, GH5S, A7SMKII, F900, Vericam 24p. Plus footage shot with most of the cameras I document below. 

And you're telling ME that I have no idea how they work?  You're a funny guy. 
 

Honestly how smart is that? The reason why most people don't own EXPENSIVE NEW cameras is because the moment you open the box, you're devaluing instantly. It's sometimes worse than owning a car. At least with a car, you can keep it for 7-10 years and still have SOME value. I've seen people lose their shirts financially on expensive cameras because they buy them when they have work, then they get injured or they have a life change and can't shoot. The bills stack up fast and they can't sell it for what it's worth because it's been 2 years and the value has tanked. The other reason why it's not smart to own expensive cameras is because if something were to happen on set, you'd have to provide another package immediately. It's far easier to simply pay for the production to rent cameras and have a backup at the ready so if anything happens, you can get one shipped out next day. 

Now I have a lot of expensive film equipment, but I bet my total investment is around $20k. I got great deals on everything because I have no need to have the fanciest/newest stuff. Current value of everything I have is probably around $50k and going up by the month. I bring home around $1k a month in rentals on average and I provide full services round trip for my clients, which I profit off of as well. So for a $20k investment, I sit on my ass doing nothing and bring in around $2k a month on average. I then learned how to fix those cameras, so I wouldn't have to pay for a technician and in my spare time (which is basically every moment of every day thanks to covid) I can sit back enjoy my life and write/produce my own content. 

Pfft, you've owned 6 cameras lol.

Film cameras; Moviecam Compact II, Moviecam Super America, BL4, 535, SRIII, 2C, Aaton LTR, Aaton XTR Prod, 2 Aaton 35III's, 2 Electronic Eyemo's (I had many, but only 2 complete packages)  4008, K3, Bolex EBM. Mind you, I've owned dozens more, (and still do today) but the rest are collectors items, so they don't count. 

Digital cameras; 2 Blackmagic Pocket Cine's, DSR300, DSR570WS, VX1000, 2 PDW-700's, Canon AHX1. 

Analog Video; BVU-100/BVP-350, BVW-5,  BVW-300, EVV-9000. I actually learned how to shoot on a VO-8800 and DXC-325 package, but it wasn't mine.

I've also owned several consumer format cameras like the Canon A1 and a few Video 8, VHS and SuperBeta camcorders. I used video 8 and Hi8 for most of my mucking around at home stuff before buying the DV camcorders. 

So I'm well above 30 cameras and out of those 30, a dozen have made me considerable money. 

So before ya brag about spending $300k because you MUST have the latest and greatest. I'll say, I love guys like you because you take it in the butt and hand me perfectly great cameras a few years later. So thanks for existing, but no I don't want your used FX9 when you go to sell it for whatever comes next. I'll be perfectly happy with my Red Komodo for a while, whenever the prices go down used. I can wait. 

Ohh and PS, I have around $4k worth of matte boxes and filters. 

You are comparing your very small fish retail , buy and hold ,silver investments , with a multi national company buying tons of Silver  as a commodity for their product .. any small price movement  per gram will make a huge difference to them.. hence , Kodak don't give out even casual information , obviously as a company policy .. because as stated THEY ARE WORRIED ABOUT THE PRICE!... as Ive said before ,they are not buying to keep under the bed as a small time long term investment inflation hedge .. did you not read that ..

Im merely using your logic .. because you shoot 50 feet of short ends a year ,this makes you some expert on film and the finances of Kodak .. so equally ,the money I have spent on Digital cameras must make me an expert of them ..

Your not going to get the last word here  .. PS you need to get some way better cameras to turn professional ..

Edited by Robin R Probyn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
48 minutes ago, Robin R Probyn said:

You are comparing your very small fish retail , buy and hold ,silver investments , with a multi national company buying tons of Silver  as a commodity for their product .. any small price movement  per gram will make a huge difference to them.. hence , Kodak don't give out even casual information , obviously as a company policy .. because as stated THEY ARE WORRIED ABOUT THE PRICE!... as Ive said before ,they are not buying to keep under the bed as a small time long term investment inflation hedge .. did you not read that ..

Did they not worry about it when over the course of 2 years silver raised to over $50/ounce? If they did, why didn't the price of film go up exponentially? I've been buying film for 30 years. When Vision stock came out in 1997 ish, I was buying new 400ft rolls for $125 with my discount. Nearly 24 years later, the price is around $40 more. Inflation between 1997 and 2021 is a bit over 60%. So that means film prices have increased BELOW inflation. Yet during those 25 years, there have been two pretty reasonable recessions and film prices never were effected. 

HISTORY doesn't lie.  HISTORY tells us, Kodak's price increases have fallen below inflation by a fair margin and the last recessions have had zero effect. Which means... neither will this one. 

48 minutes ago, Robin R Probyn said:

because you shoot 50 feet of short ends a year.  

Yes, this is like 52ft right? 

9EDD50C5-76D0-457A-8378-6C30C5D985B3.thumb.jpeg.204196b7b9b713a83fe4f6e44d4d2ae5.jpeg

48 minutes ago, Robin R Probyn said:

so equally ,the money I have spent on Digital cameras must make me an expert of them ..

Heck we got some FX9's for our $250/day rate crew at my office. Seems like a fitting match, Sony with low-end crews. Perfect match. 

48 minutes ago, Robin R Probyn said:

PS you need to get some way better cameras to turn professional ..

P.S. My single $20k camera investment will last my entire life and probably someone else's when I sell them in 40 years for 3x what I bought them for. 

But hey in the long run it's all about enjoyment of life. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

No, it's completely relevant. If you have no skin in the game, the only thing you're after is a debate about something you have no skin in the game about. 

I am a regular user of film. I’ve been shooting and processing 35mm and 120 since I was a teenager.

5 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

One of my friends was in sales, the other worked on the factory floor. Neither one have anything to do with the purchasing of silver. The only reason I mention them 

The only reason you mention them is to appeal to authority, even though you admit that neither of them has any expertise in this subject, and now, when further questioned, you invent some imaginary legal jeopardy as a way of weaseling out of having to provide proof. Did the dog also eat your homework?

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
45 minutes ago, Stuart Brereton said:

I am a regular user of film. I’ve been shooting and processing 35mm and 120 since I was a teenager.

Still film and motion picture film are entire different products. You of all people should know that. I blow more 35mm film a year than you've shot stills for your entire life. Which one of us is keeping Kodak in business? Do you really think if Kodak went out of business, you'd give a rats ass? 

Also bro, don't give me the whole been shooting since you were a teenager. I was 10  years old when I started processing black and white film with my creative arts camp. We even made our own emulsion and our own box cameras. Give me a break. 

Quote

The only reason you mention them is to appeal to authority, even though you admit that neither of them has any expertise in this subject, and now, when further questioned, you invent some imaginary legal jeopardy as a way of weaseling out of having to provide proof. Did the dog also eat your homework?

You clearly have zero expertise in the subject.

Do you have any expertise besides arguing with people on the internet about subjects you clearly know nothing about? 

Again, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. 

Edited by Tyler Purcell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Silver has had two major spikes in the last 30 years. I have shot film during both of those spikes and ya know what happened to Kodak's pricing? Nothing, zero, nada.

Now, that's interesting. So I wonder if dips in the price of silver would likewise have no effect on the price of film.

4 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Are you kidding me? That's all you've been saying! Volatile assets are NOT good investments. SO if it's a good investment than its NOT volatile. 

I disagree! Crypto is volatile but it's a heck of a lot better of an investment than anything else right now, bar none. Bitcoin by itself was the best performing asset of the previous decade, and it's probably going to be the best performing asset of this one. ?

3 hours ago, Robin R Probyn said:

PS you need to get some way better cameras to turn professional ..

Not a very wise (or nice) thing to say. The cameras that Tyler owns are very well suited to professional cinematography. I don't need to be a DP to see that.

Quick question for Tyler: do you own any lenses, or do you prefer to rent them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Did they not worry about it when over the course of 2 years silver raised to over $50/ounce? If they did, why didn't the price of film go up exponentially? I've been buying film for 30 years. When Vision stock came out in 1997 ish, I was buying new 400ft rolls for $125 with my discount. Nearly 24 years later, the price is around $40 more. Inflation between 1997 and 2021 is a bit over 60%. So that means film prices have increased BELOW inflation. Yet during those 25 years, there have been two pretty reasonable recessions and film prices never were effected. 

HISTORY doesn't lie.  HISTORY tells us, Kodak's price increases have fallen below inflation by a fair margin and the last recessions have had zero effect. Which means... neither will this one. 

Yes, this is like 52ft right? 

9EDD50C5-76D0-457A-8378-6C30C5D985B3.thumb.jpeg.204196b7b9b713a83fe4f6e44d4d2ae5.jpeg

Heck we got some FX9's for our $250/day rate crew at my office. Seems like a fitting match, Sony with low-end crews. Perfect match. 

P.S. My single $20k camera investment will last my entire life and probably someone else's when I sell them in 40 years for 3x what I bought them for. 

But hey in the long run it's all about enjoyment of life. 

You still haven't answered my question though .. is Kodak concerned about the price of silver or not .. yes or no .. you seem to say no .. its not something they are concerned about at all .. BTW  who's taping those cans like that .. looks like a low end crew to me ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

Now, that's interesting. So I wonder if dips in the price of silver would likewise have no effect on the price of film.

I disagree! Crypto is volatile but it's a heck of a lot better of an investment than anything else right now, bar none. Bitcoin by itself was the best performing asset of the previous decade, and it's probably going to be the best performing asset of this one. ?

Not a very wise (or nice) thing to say. The cameras that Tyler owns are very well suited to professional cinematography. I don't need to be a DP to see that.

Quick question for Tyler: do you own any lenses, or do you prefer to rent them?

don't worry that comment has history and is not a one off jab .. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
45 minutes ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

I disagree! Crypto is volatile but it's a heck of a lot better of an investment than anything else right now, bar none. Bitcoin by itself was the best performing asset of the previous decade, and it's probably going to be the best performing asset of this one. ?

Crypto is a new thing, it also has no intrinsic value. It's really no better than paper money. 

Think of it a different way, when the internet stops working because of a war, or some other catastrophic event, that's when you need currency to trade with. Paper has no value, but silver does, gold does, physical assets do. The whole point of diversifying into precious metals, is to withstand these events, not because you wanna make a quick buck short term. 

Where I 100% agree, crypto is the future, I also don't think we have enough history to quantify it as being a decent long-term investment because of the fragility of ownership due to it being virtual. That's just my opinion of course, but I spend a lot of time studying this subject and if I had money, I would absolutely be in crypto, but it would be for short term investing, not long term. I have nearly all my money in equipment and finished product. Not a smart thing, but when you're trying to be successful in Hollywood, sometimes you gotta take those risks. I also spent a long time racing motorcycles and doing other things, so most of my "cash" reserves, went into enjoying my 20's and 30's whilst I still could. 

45 minutes ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

Quick question for Tyler: do you own any lenses, or do you prefer to rent them?

For professional production, I prefer to rent everything for a few reasons.

1) Rental houses provide things that assistant camera people really like to have, but they are expensive and don't really recoup value much as a rental; wireless follow focus, wireless video, set monitors, etc. Lenses are big thing because reality is, you want to test different lenses and pick the right kit for your particular show. This is hard to do if you only own a certain lens ya know? The investment on GOOD cinema lenses is also very high, $30k easily and even that would be pretty old and worn housings. So why bother spending that kind of money when you can invest in some cheap class to cover ya and when you do big shoots just rent the fancy lenses. 

2) Rental houses provide 24/7 support. When a camera goes down, even if its your fault, you get a backup right away. If it were your own camera and it went down, you'd be scurrying around to find a replacement. I know... it's happened to me. I've had one of my cameras go down on a very big shoot once, blown fuse and my spares were missing from the box. I told them I'd drive fuses over, but by the time they called me, they had already found a replacement camera. Thats how quickly production needs to be back up and if you rent from a house, you're guaranteed that up time. 

3) Maintenance blows on cameras, it really blows. I love working on my cameras, but I hate the fact they break. It's small things too, never the same, always something different. Small wear and tear things and it's never ending. I've gotten to the point where I've been buying spares for everything and preying I have the right ones when the camera fails. The amount of knowledge I've gained in camera repair staggers the two top Aaton guys in LA, both of whom have very graciously helped me out, unlike so many people who have tried endlessly to thwart owners from fixing their own cameras. 

For my own film productions, I generally stick to what I have and augment with what's missing for the particular show. I also generally shoot with one camera on film due to cost, so it's a pretty small kit over-all. 

For professional film productions, 8 times out of 10 they will rent lenses of my picking. I'll just give them a list and they show up on set. 

For professional digital production I always rent complete packages and usually we use 2 cameras. Since we mostly shoot commercial, industrial, education and documentary work, having 2 cameras is really great. On a narrative, I still stick to single camera unless the budget allows two. 

Edited by Tyler Purcell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
13 minutes ago, Robin R Probyn said:

You still haven't answered my question though .. is Kodak concerned about the price of silver or not .. yes or no .. you seem to say no .. its not something they are concerned about at all .. BTW  who's taping those cans like that .. looks like a low end crew to me ..

I have no idea what Kodak is thinking, nobody does. I just look at history and understand that history always repeats itself. That is the one guarantee in life. Not a single thing someone says at Kodak today or even tomorrow, can change the historical impacts of the past. 

Edited by Tyler Purcell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
12 minutes ago, Robin R Probyn said:

don't worry that comment has history and is not a one off jab .. 

Yea, you and your buddy Stewart have always ridiculed my abilities, my knowledge and experience. Yet I've been doing this longer than both of you. 

All I did was say certain Sony cameras were shit and from that day forward you turned into a bloody fascist. You don't make them, you don't own the company and you have no stake in Sony as you've admitted. 

Yet you still will defend those very particular cameras to the end of time, by of course telling me, the guy who has shot with nearly every top digital cinema camera AND owned and/or operated practically every modern film camera made, that I'm the idiot. Please. 

For gosh sakes man, get a life. 

Edited by Tyler Purcell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Still film and motion picture film are entire different products. You of all people should know that. I blow more 35mm film a year than you've shot stills for your entire life. Which one of us is keeping Kodak in business? Do you really think if Kodak went out of business, you'd give a rats ass? 

Also bro, don't give me the whole been shooting since you were a teenager. I was 10  years old when I started processing black and white film with my creative arts camp. We even made our own emulsion and our own box cameras. Give me a break. 

You clearly have zero expertise in the subject.

Do you have any expertise besides arguing with people on the internet about subjects you clearly know nothing about? 

Again, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. 

For the purposes of this conversation, stills and motion picture film are the same thing. You specifically included stills when you made your claims about “millions” of people shooting film.

Purchasing a product does not make you knowledgeable. I know this is the basis of your own claims to expertise, but it’s simply not true. If it was true, you wouldn’t need to resort to quoting imaginary contacts at Kodak.

I mentioned my involvement with shooting film purely because you asked, not because I believe it has any relevance. Obviously, you want to turn it into a pissing contest because you’re so desperate to be right that you think listing every camera you’ve ever owned and recounting your exploits from summer camp is in some way a compelling argument for an adult to be making. That's the kind of thing that children do.

We’re all well aware that you consider yourself to be the resident expert on film. Unfortunately for you, no one here is the slightest bit interested in your bullshit, “bro”.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Yea, you and your buddy Stewart have always ridiculed my abilities, my knowledge and experience. Yet I've been doing this longer than both of you. 

All I did was say certain Sony cameras were shit and from that day forward you turned into a bloody fascist. You don't make them, you don't own the company and you have no stake in Sony as you've admitted. 

Yet you still will defend those very particular cameras to the end of time, by of course telling me, the guy who has shot with nearly every top digital cinema camera AND owned and/or operated practically every modern film camera made, that I'm the idiot. Please. 

For gosh sakes man, get a life. 

Not so .. you made totally wrong comments about shooting Sony  Slog3 and then went on to criticize Sony f5/55 .. I had that camera and pointed out you were not shooting correctly and actually as it transpired  had no idea about log gamma shooting .. I was perfectly polite ... instead of taking the advise and knowledge  you went on the attack and as your ego seemed to have been dented .. and you can never be wrong about anything ..you were and have continued to spread  at times ,totally wrong information about cameras and well just about anything you don't understand ..the whole Walter Mitty thing , the friends thing .. for the love of Pete ... just stop it .. 

Edited by Robin R Probyn
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

I have no idea what Kodak is thinking, nobody does. I just look at history and understand that history always repeats itself. That is the one guarantee in life. Not a single thing someone says at Kodak today or even tomorrow, can change the historical impacts of the past. 

You have said plainly that Kodak is not concerned about the price of Silver , backed up by your friends at Kodak, that would put me straight .. and bizarrely by the tiny amount of film you purchase a year .. what is this BS you have now written ..  now you have no idea ?  historical impacts ? .. what happened to all the big talk ..   and I should get a life ???

Edited by Robin R Probyn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
3 hours ago, Stuart Brereton said:

For the purposes of this conversation, stills and motion picture film are the same thing.

  Disagree. Still photography films can be continuously perforated, i. e. with bigger tolerances on pitch and hole row straightness. You have at least two perforation types with movie films and different pitches, only one type (Kodak Standard ISO P) with still films. Still films are not sold in rolls longer than 100 foot and they’re not lubricated. Motion-picture films often have a thin wax or some other backing and always hardened gelatine top layers. Some still films have soft and rather sticky coatings on a dry base. Also, movie films are made on thinner bases, if you compare.

Color movie films of today are available only for the Eastmancolor negative and positive process or for E-6 treatment. Color negative films for paper prints off them go into C-41. Quite a few differences

In the field of black and white the films resemble each other more closely, chemistry-wise, but the mechanical aspects are still incomparable. The only stock that’s in use for still slides as well as in movie machines is Fomapan R 100. It’s not available for professional motion-picture cameras, though—the type P perforation does not fit the movement of a Bell & Howell, a Mitchell or an Arriflex camera.

I don’t think film will become cheaper in the future. If I had a film manufacture, I’d try to keep prices stable, of course. How else could I gain confidence in my products?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
9 hours ago, Stuart Brereton said:

For the purposes of this conversation, stills and motion picture film are the same thing. You specifically included stills when you made your claims about “millions” of people shooting film.

I mean, there are several companies that make still film. So I don't understand how stills has any relevance in a conversation about Kodak motion picture film pricing, which is the topic of this conversation. 

9 hours ago, Stuart Brereton said:

Purchasing a product does not make you knowledgeable. I know this is the basis of your own claims to expertise, but it’s simply not true. If it was true, you wouldn’t need to resort to quoting imaginary contacts at Kodak.

No, I study the markets and history of them. I posted graphs a few pages back that explains how stable silver is over the long term. Not only that, but anyone who shoots film, knows the pricing hasn't been effected in the past due to these recession prices increases. So that mixed with my friends comments, makes sense. You can disagree and think I'm lying, but historical evidence says otherwise. 

9 hours ago, Stuart Brereton said:

I mentioned my involvement with shooting film purely because you asked, not because I believe it has any relevance. Obviously, you want to turn it into a pissing contest because you’re so desperate to be right that you think listing every camera you’ve ever owned and recounting your exploits from summer camp is in some way a compelling argument for an adult to be making. That's the kind of thing that children do.

Right, and you don't shoot motion picture film personally, so you wouldn't know the historical pricing changes. Thus, you'd be missing a critical piece of data for this conversation. 

Robin bragged about spending $300k on owning 6 cameras. Then feels, like you, to denounce my abilities, skills and "professionalism". Don't you think it's worth mentioning that I've owned over 30 cameras? 

If you want to talk about childish behavior, just look at your own. How can you and Robin not look at my data, not study the history of pricing and then argue with me about my comments? It's called critical thinking. 

9 hours ago, Stuart Brereton said:

We’re all well aware that you consider yourself to be the resident expert on film. Unfortunately for you, no one here is the slightest bit interested in your bullshit, “bro”.

I think they actually don't care about YOUR. bullshit. I'm simply the one stating what I know about a subject. You are the one threatening me about my comments. Like you always do, every, single, time. 

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...