Todd Anderson

Thank you for the information, David. When you find the time, and if you happen to know if any of the Agfa features you shot (I'm not sure if you are referring to "indie", or 'no budget' features) are available on DVD, I would be interested in seeing the look of that stock. But, of course, I realize the digital transfer of any home video release may have not been made off of the original negative and may have been telecine'd all over the place if any copy of those features exist. Thanks — T

David, Thank you for the reply back. Regardless of any sort of limitations you may have encountered with the limited availability of stocks these days, the film still has a great feel. And there are some beautiful shots in the trailer that achieve that intended look, for certain (even if I understand the director had a certain agenda in some for the character of the look, as well). I’m looking forward to a blu-ray release to look it all over in more detail. Also, as you say, a portion of the contrast, color and look is being lost in the DCP. I can very much visualize the difference in my head. Another question, you state that you “may have tested Fuji Vivid stocks” for the film. Is there still a source that you personally know that has rolls off Fuji Motion stock? I know for awhile it was available in the U.K., but I have yet to see any surface in the Los Angles area in any significant quantities. And as far was I know most, if not all, of it is gone in the U.K. from that particular source. Lastly, I noticed the following link on the companies website that bought the rights to the film. Again, looking forward to the release. http://thelovewitch.oscilloscope.net And just as I was finishing typing the above, I saw your post of the 16mm short. Really beautiful / wonderful. Thank you for sharing. That is amazing. Reminds me of Hitchcock’s ‘Rope’ a little in terms of the period, color and mostly one room staging. That was shot in the early / mid 1990’s? Kodak EXR stocks? -T

David, I really liked your work on, “Assassination of a High School President” (Fuji stock). I, myself, have been trying to get use to the modern Kodak stocks. The grain structure can be very tight, and you see so much into the shadows that it can be hard to achieve that classic look of films of the past in 35mm in terms of both color, contrast and grain structure. After Fuji discounted there motion stocks, some of my tests with S16mm have been favorable in achieving some of this more so than 35mm. Had you considered S16mm in your discussion with the director for this particular project? Or was that ruled out because of too much depth of field for the classic look you were after? I’m actually a art director (in print design), but shoot a lot of analog still photography and some motion. For the analog still camera work, I scan the negatives on a Nikon scanner, and have to work really hard to get some of that ‘classic’ look from some of my images of the way I remember old films, older fashion photography, etc. As with the newer motion stocks, the new Kodak still film stocks are hard to achieve that at times. But I have had some wonderful results enough times to keep me staying on the analog path. In the below link, much is obviously available light work, but all the studio light work was either with one tungsten fresnel, or a soft box attached to a 1K tungsten open face. The tungsten obviously had a great deal to do with helping me achieve some of that classic looks in those particular shots. Lastly, David, glad to see you talking about a analog project, again. Always interesting to see the details of your approach and your acute knowledge of it all. Here is a link if anyone should be interested: https://www.instagram.com/todd.j.anderson/ — T

Jo, I have a near mint condition Angenieux 9.5-57 T1.8 HEC version I may consider selling. I sent you a PM, feel free to call to discuss. Thanks, -T

Hi Freya, Regarding wether or not Lynch was 'joking', being serious, or saying his reply back to me in a mocking like fashion, it was definitely in the sense of him saying, basically, that it was not easy in the least to make that particular film (perhaps it was creatively gratifying for him, and he didn't have studio heads looking over his shoulders, but perhaps it was taxing to make, nonetheless). But his tone was more like, under his breath he was going, "are you kidding?", but in his dead pan, dry delivery way. It was the last question of the night and I basically said to myself, "ah, that is not what I meant ... " as the crowd broke up. But it is all good. I love the man. And yes, I would think Super16mm would be perfect for Lynch. Hopefully, he'll go in that direction if funding becomes an issue again. -T

Gregg, regarding the interview with Lynch about saying, "he'd never shoot on film again.", it seems in the links above that he has certainly fell back in love with celluloid for the time being. I was in the audience during the 20th Anniversary screening of 'Blue Velvet' a few years back, and he was promoting 'Inland Empire' at the time and was on stage after the 'Blue Velvet' screening to answer some questions. Lynch was talking about how the 'gauzy' images he was getting out of his camcorder reminded him of the texture of films from the 1930's (perhaps referring to some Josef von Sternberg work?). Anyhow, the moderator had asked him if he felt he could get as similar of an images as the rich image we just viewed with 'Blue Velvet' on digital, and Lynch said, "Film is Dead. It is a dinosaur." Or something very close along those lines. Anyhow, let's be glad that artists do in fact change their minds over time. Now I'm hoping the other David (Fincher), will reconsider shooting another project on film in the future, as I still see it as, "the right tone or atmosphere" for the story being told, versus, one is better than the other for every project. Be that a love of having a few hundred takes like Kubrick or more control over the project (Fincher has mentioned in interviews that he has in the past relied too often than not for trusting the DP, asking, "Do you think you got the shot?", only to be disappointed with various shots after seeing the dailies. And that is understandable from his perspective, as he likes that control and he is brilliant at what he does, but let's hope he has a change of heart, as well. -T

Matthew, yes, I saw the Los Angeles premier of 'Inland Empire' eight years at Arclight in Los Angles on their very big screen, and the score was so powerful (especially from the start of the opening sequence), that I slowly started to forgive Lynch (if only partially) for shooting it on a prosumer camcorder. It was still a powerful experience on the big screen. David Lynch was also presenting and answering questions afterwards at that screening, and I asked him, "I realize you do not like to talk very much about the meaning of your films, but would you agree in saying that this is the most simplistic film you have ever made (meaning, the idea at the heart of the film)," To which he mockingly replied back to me, "Yes. This was a 'very' easy film for me to make." Luckily, he didn't recognize me when I was shaking his hands afterwards and congratulating him on a beautifully made film... but yes, I miss all to well the depth in the shadows and the color saturation of his earlier work on celluloid. Looking forward to seeing that again... -T

Hey Gregg, sorry, yes I looked into the main pages of the usual suspects before posting this ('In production', 'film stocks and processing', etc ) and hadn't seen a mention, so I thought it was big enough news to spread from the top down in "General Discussions". At least it felt that way to myself. But, yes, perhaps cross pollination or I don't mind if someone moves this into the other thread. -T

What a relief this will be. After working exclusively in digital video for the last eight or so years, and even mentioning to Keanu Reeves in the 2012 'Side By Side' documentary that, "Don't hold me to it Keanu, but I think I am [done with film]", Lynch has now stated he is, "Falling in love with film again." Apparently, his new found nostalgia for film came about while restoring the 'Twin Peaks Fire Walk With Me" missing pieces footage. Regarding the new 'Twin Peaks' series, he wouldn't go into any details about the show but confirmed it would be shot on film. His quote being, ".... We're gonna do the same things, but in better quality. And film remains the best quality." . See link below (regarding 'Twin Peaks' being shot on film): http://welcometotwinpeaks.com/news/david-lynch-twin-peaks-2016-on-film/#ixzz3JiUAF3OG Let's hope that the rumored new film he may be in the very early stages of working on continues down this path, as well. -T

My impression (beyond the more pleasing textural qualities that film offers, which can be kinder to an actors face, as it has some inherent painterly like qualities and diffusion like qualities built in) has to do with the fact — and I’m assuming this is still a fact today — that film still captures more color information. And it is that “nuanced” color information that can capture the subtle ‘color’ of skin in a way that is more pleasing to the eye, because frankly, it is made up of more gradations of all the colors in flesh tones. It also feels like film can handle all the subtle make up of red, blues, and yellows of skin at the same time, versus taking a dramatic shift in one direction or the other when trying to grade it, as well. When digital sensors first came out, there was certainly a kind of a ‘band aid’ skin tone color. Almost like beige had a few shades and that was it, with the sensor throwing out or not being able to capture the other subtle colors that make up a flesh tone. I feel digital has gotten much better, but in my opinion is still does not reproduced skin in a way that film does, and perhaps it never will. I also feel there is a ‘softness’ to film, in that it can render a close-up of a face that is both sharp and soft at the same time. Some of has to do with what was discussed at the beginning of this paragraph I believe, and also perhaps, may have to do with the fact that each frame of film has the particles of the grain shifting to a different position, so it is not lingering and producing a hard ‘edge’, like say what a pixel in the same position may do. An analogy may be why does linoleum look different from tile, or imitation plastic look different from leather, even if most of the colors are the same. It is texture, nuanced color information and ‘the feel’ of organic materials that again are hard to quantify. Does this mean skin tones and talent always look horrible with digital and beautiful with film? Certainly not so. And there is of course a subjective nature to this discussion, as is there a emotional response that is unquantifiable when viewing a frame shot with digital versus film. I think if you are trying to tell a certain story, and you feel your eye is not trained enough to discern the differences above, shoot a test in both film and digital. Hang both of these tests up on a wall side by side (or next to each other on a monitor, I suppose), and ask yourself — and others whom you want to bring into the creative discussion — which one evokes more accurately the emotional response to that of the story you are trying to tell. Which one creates that atmosphere better. That is what it comes down to. And that is why an artist working in this medium should have both tools available for them to chose from, just as a painter can choose between oil or acrylic paint, or pastels or charcoal, etc. And that is why it matters that film isn’t pushed out of the equation by accountants, stock holders, or other matters that have nothing to do with art. There should always be that choice. But this of course is just my opinion. -T

I'm waiting for color negative from them, as well. But I'm sure negative stocks are in the works, and once everything is up and running, would be the next stocks in line. I imagine with Kodak discontinuing their color reversal (especially in small formats), Ferrania saw it as an opportunity to not only fill a hole, but to also say that they were providing for a nitch market (including enthusiasts) from the get go, versus just providing stock for commercial features, i.e, what Kodak is currently doing.

Put in a pledge, as well. Really excited about Ferrania. They are certainly the 'White Knight' of analog going forward, especially for color stock. It should also be mentioned that they have done an excellent job on the packaging design (apparently keeping in tune with the 1960's look). It feels classic, minimalistic, and almost like a fancy pack of cigarettes. These are going to look good rolled up in your t-shirt sleeve out on a shoot ...

Really great find on ebay, Daniel. Keeps us posted when you get back your first test footage.

I do feel digital projection and blu-ray offers a very decent viewing experience on many occasions (I'm a film advocate and prefer to watch something that at least originated on film) but there are certain films I had seen in the theater years ago, and which I purchase each time there is a new home video release hoping to re-create that experience, that the experience is never the same. This has to do with the distinct tones, colors and atmosphere coming off the print with light shining through it. The most extreme example of this for me is Stanley Kubrick's 'Eyes Wide Shut." That was magical in the theater. Especially, in the scene lit only by Christmas lights (the gala / party in the beginning of the film). In the theater, it had this wonderful impressionistic golden glow. I've yet to feel that again with a viewing in any sort of subsequent digital format. A lesser, though I still think brilliant work, was that film "The Libertine". Again, the tones, color pallet and atmosphere was incredible. The only home video release state side of this latter film is on DVD, but it pales in comparison. -T

This vintage short documentary / promotional piece showing the manufacturing of film on the Ferrania site may add to David Mullen's quote — the second post in this thread — about why it is difficult to lessen the cost of manufacturing film, beyond the economics of scale and cost of silver, etc. Perhaps there has been some optimization in quality control over the years, but there is no questions it is still a highly sophisticated and costly operation no matter how you look at it. https://filmferrania.squarespace.com/news/the-countdown-begins/2014 As an aside, on the same page below the clip, it is also stating that Ferrania is preparing for some big announcements coming in mid-september. So that sounds promising for still and motion enthusiast who have been eagerly awaiting for some new news from italy. I guess at the moment, even with the discontinuation of 16mm A-minima rolls from Kodak, and 200' loads of 35mm, we have some upbeat news from Kodak and Ferrania. -T

Well, 9 years after this original post I guess the question has been answered. It appears in the most recent discontinued listing, Kodak has killed off their 200' a-minima rolls for Vision 3 250D & 500T, which my understanding was the last emulsions that they were supporting in the a-minima load. I always feared that this specialty load would be the first to go and held off on a used a-minma and opted for an XTR-Plus. I'm still glad we have 100' and 400' loads, so I will not complain. What is the consensus from the a-minima users? Will you just get the lab to load spare 200' cores that you have? -T p.s. it also appears that Kodak mentioned (obviously) that there is not a catalog replacement but to contact them for spare 200' a-minima cores. So a heads up if you want to get a few for the future before they go. Obviously, now would be the time to call.

Well. from the way I understand it, while Kodak sold off their still photography portion of the company to get out of bankruptcy (by essentially giving that company to the entities they owed pension funds to), they are still manufacturing the still photography stock in their plant in Rochester for Kodak Alaris. And so I think they held onto the Motion Picture portion for one or two reasons. One, they were maybe not to keen yet on giving away patents, science and technology to Kodak Alaris at this point, let alone letting them actually try to make the product with the quality control they are know for. And secondly, I think they realize that from a brand perspective, the "Hollywood" and historical image of Kodak attached to the Motion Picture industry (especially in Hollywood), is too much of a golden brand image component to let go of. It likely adds a massive allure to their other existing brands and products, which are obviously not very exciting. I mean, when you get a printed brochure from Kodak about their printed circuit board business, there is no doubt the opening paragraphs likely starts off with the Kodak legacy, history and their gold standard product for Hollywood. As to this talk of they were thinking about shutting down the Rochester plant until this recent Hollywood studio deal, I have no idea how that would have effected Kodak Alaris and the still photography product. I would imagine it is all interrelated. And perhaps when they let go of the still photography portion of the company to Kodak Alaris, perhaps their is a clause in the contract that states if the Motion Picture portion of the company were to no longer turn a profit, then perhaps Kodak is no longer obligated to supply stock to Kodak Alaris. And maybe that is when this talk of tooling for a smaller niche market would come into play, or perhaps that would be the end of Kodak Alaris and the still photography side for that moment in time. It would be interesting to know how it is all tied together. - T

Here is some other new information coming from Hollywood that is at least optimistic: Tarantino, Nolan, Apatow, Abrams and Studios Team Up to Save Celluloid July 30, 2014, Kodak CEO Jeff Clarke confirmed today that his company will continue production of film stock. The announcement comes after such prominent directors as Quentin Tarantino, Christopher Nolan, Judd Apatow, and J.J. Abrams campaigned heavily to get the major studios to continue using film stock. According to The Wall Street Journal, an agreement is being finalized which guarantees that the Hollywood studios (currently Disney, Warner Brothers, Paramount, Universal, The Weinstein Company) will purchase from Kodak a certain amount of film stock over the next few years. This will allow Kodak to continue operating its plant in Rochester, N.Y. Bob Weinstein, co-chairman of Weinstein Co., commented: "It's a financial commitment, no doubt about it. But I don't think we could look some of our filmmakers in the eyes if we didn't do it." Warner Brothers CEO Kevin Tsujihara added: "In an industry where we very rarely have unanimity, everyone has rallied around keeping film as an option for the foreseeable future". Kodak CEO Jeff Clarke also commented: "The unprecedented decline in the use of film in the entertainment industry created an enormous amount of uncertainty. We had to build a coalition among all the parties in order to reach a solution."

There is no question it is a very important niche market. The only downside is that Kodak's plant was never set up for a niche market. Though, they have mentioned they are looking forward with ways that could potentially work for the smaller market, as in, not unlike Kickstarter, a large group of people would pre-purchase a particular film stock and then when enough orders were met, they would make that batch of film to meet those orders. Perhaps it will come to that. The other hope is that if and when it gets to a point that Kodak and their stock holders no longer want to keep the Rochester plant going, that perhaps they would sell the science and patents to their film stocks and a smaller company could eventually tool up a smaller factory for that niche market (not unlike what Film Ferrania is trying to accomplish). - T

The article mentioned they want to produce 450 million feet of film (I assume per year, or in a batch that would last a few years, perhaps?). 450 feet of 4-perf 35mm = 5 minutes 5 minutes x 1,000,000 = 5,000,000 minutes Divided by 60 minutes = 83,000 hours of film I guess if we throw in an average shooting ratio, we could see how many films would be able to be produced with this amount of footage (discounting the mention that some of that 450 million feet would be allocated for film prints). Of course, in my slightly twisted dream, I wish the demand was such that their was a shortage of film. And just as being a small child in the 1970’s in the states, with the gas shortage, you would have to drive up to the Kodak offices with either an even or odd vehcial liscense plate number to get your ration of film for the day. But of course that s not quite the case, as the last time I drove to get some film at the Kodak offices in Hollywood, I was a bit shocked it was now a small little will call office down the alley and not the big building! But I'm thankful you can at least buy Kodak film stock in person in Los Angeles and other cities. No complaints there. Is my math correct above? -T

Exactly, Silver. Not to mention the last time Kodak re-tooled their plant in Rochester it was during the heyday of film sales and not set up for a niche market. So, everything is geared for a certain amount of volume, no doubt. Let’s hope that Film Ferrania comes in and fills the gap in the case that Kodak’s plan falls through (at least for the indie scene), seeing how that team in Italy is well aware that they are trying to produce for a niche market (kind of like Ilforrd for still photography or the Impossible project for instant film) and are setting up their operation in that manner. Of course, I'm hoping that the studio heads still see value in film. Perhaps, at least to the point that it may be a unique product to have in their arsenal to differentiate itself from all these other mediums they compete with everyday. Maybe one day that will make more sense to them. Just like the introduction of wide-screen in the 1950's was set up to differentiate from what was going on in the home with the TV set. I know they thought 3-D was going to be that this time around. But perhaps it may turn out to be good old film. The medium with its unique dreamy characteristics and imperfections that makes it a little easier to separate yourself from reality, suspend disbelief and float into a story on a screen in a darkened room (my own opinion, of course). Either way, it doesn’t look all doom and gloom. There is a great chance that Kodak can pull off the sales with their other technologies and vertical markets. And I’m sure that it is well worth it from a Branding and Public Relations standpoint for Kodak to keep producing that “Hollywood” motion picture stock even if it is a break even or slight loss leader. Of course, this is only if the other businesses produced big volumes to the point that they would take that hit. -T

I just posted the latest about Kodak and Motion Picture stock in the "General Discussions" area. Very relevant to this topic, of course. http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=64456 Kodak, Hollywood talking film guarantees Article link below: http://www.democrata...e-film/13361327/

Well, here is the latest. It would be great to see at least annual guarantees on a year by year basis for motion stock. Also, crossing my fingers that everything else Kodak's has laid out in their other business plan — in regards to touchscreen sensor film and printed circuit boards — brings in the expected big volumes by 2015 to keep the motion picture stock going on the side, as mentioned. Apparently, this is a 'bridging the gap' deal with the studios until such profits from the other business are seen next year. -T (see article below) http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/money/business/2014/07/30/kodak-hollywood-motion-picture-film/13361327/ Kodak, Hollywood talking film guarantees July 30, 2014 Hollywood is great at finding new life in something old, from the 007 franchise to the 200-plus times Sherlock Holmes has been portrayed on screen. Now major Hollywood studios are helping extend the life of Eastman Kodak Co.'s rapidly evaporatingmotion picture film business. The company confirmed Wednesday that it was in negotiations with a number of major studios to secure commitments to purchase guaranteed amounts of Kodak-made motion picture film in coming years. The deals, first reported in The Wall Street Journal, could help shore up what has been a staggering decline in what long had been a big business for Kodak. Kodak spokesman Christopher Veronda said Kodak will make roughly 450 million linear feet of film for producing and projecting motion pictures. That's roughly one twenty-eighth of the motion picture film the company produced in 2006. Brad Kruchten, president of Kodak's graphics, entertainment and commercial film business, said the company hopes to have the agreements signed by the end of September. They likely would be one-year agreements that would be updated annually. "We really want this to be a partnership with the industry," Kruchten said Wednesday. "(Studios) see real value in having film available — certainly we'd like to be able to support that." And for Kodak, having such agreements in place let it better plan for the volumes it will need to make, Kruchten said. Kodak's main film business rival, Fujifilm, quit making most motion picture films in March 2013, saying it would put its business focus on products and services aimed at the digital wing of motion picture production and projection. Fujifilm that while it worked to cut the cost of making such films, "the dramatic decrease of demand in the last few years has become far too great a burden." Traditionally, most of Kodak's motion picture film was used for projection. With theaters switching to digital projectors, "That's the one that's fallen off the fastest," Kruchten said. When asked about how long Kodak's motion picture film business can exist given those declines, Kruchten said, "That's the $10,000 question." The company hopes in 2015 to start seeing significant volumes from its nascent functional print business, which uses printing technology and some film equipment to turn out such products as touchscreen sensor film and printed circuit boards. Big volumes in that business area would let Kodak continue to turn out motion picture film on the side, Kruchten said. The Hollywood agreements "are bridging the gap." MDANEMAN@DemocratandChronicle.com

David, If I were you I would go for a Aaton XTR (or XTR Plus) S16 camera with a Aaton mount. Aaton gave the option of either their own proprietary mount or a PL mount for the XTR's. The benefit of the Aaton mount it that the FFD is such that it can accept an adapter for Nikon still lenses. When it comes around used online, you can usually find the Aaton to Nikon adapter on ebay for $75 - $150. You can also get an Aaton to Arri B mount adapter for Arri B mount lenses, which in S16mm, are usually are a bit cheaper than their PL mount equivalents. Hope that helps, -T

I think It sounds like a positive email. And it sounds like Kodak is trying to reassure the current user group that they are committed to film. I thought the wording was really well done. Things thrown in like, "... Kodak is committed to giving artists a choice when deciding which tools will best illuminate their stories.” And, "we certainly see a future for film, and are dedicated to shaping it." To be honest, that is all I think most film shooters are wishing for. That that choice will be available. Thanks, Kodak. And good luck Mr. Evensk.