Jump to content

Future of 35mm


A.J. Green

Recommended Posts

Fortunately here in the US we've got an incoming Administration that isn't going to be as willing to allow large corporations to monopolize entire industries.-Hal

You have got to be kidding!

 

Our Government is a large Corporation... that just got bigger... and brags about it's intent to monopolize! :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Glen Alexander
Then have it printed on 70mm. Blow up 1.33x for 2.2:1 or 1:1 for 1.66:1.

 

Uhm, good idea but VV can be 1.66:1, 1.85:1 and 2:1

 

IMAX Aspect ratio: 1.35:1 (camera), 1.43:1 (projected)

 

I would have to have black bars at top and bottom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the proof I see that 35mm film is doing fine: Kodak's motion picture division is making more money than they ever have before. It's pretty much the reason there is a Kodak anymore.

 

Chris, while you're right that film has one of the largest profit margins of anything Kodak sells, their sales were down 18% in their film division this past quarter (either from last year or the same time last quarter, I forget).

 

When they loose 6 billion feet a year of print stock sales because all the damned theatres are going digital, that will probably be the beginning of the end of color film for both Kodak and Fuji.

 

Even if negative stocks survive, prices are probably going to skyrocket, and we're probably going to see the end of E6 stocks too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Film will never go away. Why? The same reason why some artist choose to paint with oils over acrylics, why some musicians master to vinyl using analog instruments, why some novelists still type on an analog typewriter. The list could go on forever. You cant make something be something its not. That said, I like both film and digital- but you don't need to worry about the end of film based image acquisition anytime soon. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Film will never go away. Why? The same reason why some artist choose to paint with oils over acrylics, why some musicians master to vinyl using analog instruments, why some novelists still type on an analog typewriter. The list could go on forever. You cant make something be something its not. That said, I like both film and digital- but you don't need to worry about the end of film based image acquisition anytime soon. ;)

 

Hunter, no offense, but your assertion that film is like paint is ridiculous.

 

I could make paint in the basement sink. I wouldn't even have to be sober to do it.

 

Kodak has to sell billions of feet of 35mm equivalent to break even because the machinery is that big. Like I said, in three years, they're going to loose a significant chunk of their 6 billion feet print stock yearly sales. What do you think this is going to do to the Eastman Kodak company's film department?

 

So if you have to make say a billion feet to break even and say three billion feet before you start making money, and a dozen film purists are shooting any film at all in a given year, what do you think Kodak is going to do?

 

Anytime soon is sooner than you think. Filmmaking is nowhere near as easy as stamping shellac or coating metal onto plastic tape or churning out typewriters on lines that paid for themselves four decades ago.

 

It is an expensive, pseudoscientific attempt to control a very chaotic process using an expensive precious metal and very very specialized dyes and coaters.

 

I agree that B&W film will be around forever, you *can* make that yourself, but the fact that there are only two color film companies making movie film, down from what, six or seven before, is a clear indication that the industry is already very very fragile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Karl,

 

I beg you to stop. Your logical reasoning is depressing me :(

 

Want to hear something even more depressing?

 

I was looking for a lab that prints C-41 still film the other day, optically, and I only found one that was affordably-priced compared to digital. The only other three I know of all charge 3-4 times as much just to projection-print :blink:

 

That's a taste of things to come if you're trying to get a 35mm optical or contact print made say five or six years from now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Are you saying Fuji has smaller machines, they seem to make better film cheaper & sell less of it quite sucessfully!

 

Stephen

 

Hey Stephen. Sorry, I am obviously a Kodak guy. Fuji has the same trouble.

 

Only reason they have a lower price is because that is the way they make better market share. Kodak charges more because they have a better history behind their name, and I'd assume because the dollar is so weak, it'd actually be cheaper to get Kodak than Fuji over in Europe right now.

 

Fuji has the same problems though. They just are more honest about them! You don't see Fuji making obsolescent emulsions, like Kodachrome. So I'd assume that Kodak's neg. prices help prop up their larger array of loss-leader products Kodak has a very Orwellian marketing department. Double-plus-ungood anyone?

 

But no, Fuji has better archivability by a factor of two, but they frankly don't seem to have as good R&D with neg. film. They made the mistake of concentrating more on slide film. And obviously we know that market has been completely decimated by digital.

 

Kodak was, through dumb luck, more vested in C-41/ECN-2 during the digital changeover than Fuji was. It was the other way around in the early '80s with Fuji's 500T VNF-1 stock and their 250T neg. stock when all Kodak had was 100. Kodak caught up quickly, but they definitely let Fuji take over E6 then.

 

They charge more because, there films is actually faster than Fuji's and despite being horrendous still in terms of archival qualities, they have films that deliver better rendition of caucasian flesh tones.

 

Fuji still has a sort of green-magenta bias going on. IDK, maybe they render asian flesh tones better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Karl,

 

Digital projection only reduces print costs because a HDD cost less than the film print - currently virtual prints cost more than 35mm prints because they need a very very very expensive projector to show them on which is fine if you live in a highly urbanized 'cluster' of cinemas as the plan is to send the movie down a pipe or by satellite. If you don't live in an area that can afford this type of hi-tech, which is the fly-over states and most of everywhere else in the world you'll need delivery. Say about half of all screens worldwide will be able to afford the outlay, it's $200K a pop per screen, that's $4bn for the kit before you even make the print. US annual gross box office is around $7 to $9. Given the rather poor state of the world economy I think it's fair to say: finding a financier to come up with an extra $4,000,000,000 might nudge the argument in favor of good old 35mm for the next few years.

 

Furthermore how many digitally shot films have you seen projected digitally? I was in the 20th Century FOX European HQ private screening room a couple of weeks ago watching an excerpt from a friends film on one of the Pioneer projectors - it didn't look good pal. Also, the post making the correlation between film and painting suggests that filmmaking is an art, in particular that cinematography is an art - painting with light, and the manufacturing process of film is part of this art. Certainly you mix some stuff in you're basement and call it paint but what you make with that paint can be garbage or it can be a masterpeice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furthermore how many digitally shot films have you seen projected digitally? I was in the 20th Century FOX European HQ private screening room a couple of weeks ago watching an excerpt from a friends film on one of the Pioneer projectors - it didn't look good pal. Also, the post making the correlation between film and painting suggests that filmmaking is an art, in particular that cinematography is an art - painting with light, and the manufacturing process of film is part of this art. Certainly you mix some stuff in you're basement and call it paint but what you make with that paint can be garbage or it can be a masterpeice.

 

The only "flims" I've seen projected digitally were film-originated. One of the Harry Potter films was the only one. Were I not there with my friends I would've asked for a refund. Maybe I saw one other.

 

I'm not saying that any of this poop looks good. I'm saying what I'm saying because it's in all likelihood what is going to happen. Do you think I am HAPPY saying what I'm saying?

 

I agree that filmmaking is art. Well, so is digital cinematography, but this is a moot point.

 

The manufacturing of the material is an art too, but it is a BIG BUSINESS first, whereas paint manufacture, tape manufacture, or B&W film manufacture doesn't have to be. I disagree that the correlation was between film as art and paint as art, it was trying to liken the manufacture of film to making paint, or pressing vinyl, or magnetizing tape.

 

I wish film were that easy, but it isn't. You're coating over a dozen nano-inch thick layers onto a piece of acetate, in the dark, and you need to make every one of these coatings consistent along a 6,000-foot length (1 1/8 MILES or 1.8 km) 24 in. width (60 cm). It just isn't affordable unless it is done on an industrial basis, which means you NEED big-budget films shot on film to justify making any film at all. This isn't still photography, where the amateur users shot way more film than the pros did. Moviemakers shoot 1,000,000 feet of film on a production like it is nothing. How many S8 cartridges is that? Answer: 82,500. When you consider that there's probably, worldwide, 8 BILLION feet of ECN-2 stock consumed each year, or the equivalent of 8,000 million-foot movies, that is the equivalent of 660 million S8 cartridges necessary to maintain current volumes at Kodak and Fuji. I couldn't imagine them keeping up production for less than say 1/4 of that. So 165 million divided by two would mean each company would have to sell 82.5 million S8 cartridges a year worth of film to even keep making it. I can't see that ever happening. . .

 

I can't bear to see people deluding themselves that because film should be made that Kodak is going to continue to make it. They're a publicly traded business. They have to make money on products or they are going to stop making them.

 

So when 6-billion a year of print stock sales is reduced to less than one billion in three years, which is going to happen search for the article on this site, filmmakers Eastman Kodak and Fujifilm are going to get hit very very hard. Aerial film production, then, will probably be the only industrial endeavour propping film manufacture up. Even that is going digital. People are getting too cheap now to buy aerial reconaissance, so they just use satellite imagery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Want to hear something even more depressing? - Karl Borowski

 

No.. you have done enough damage for one night. :(

 

Hey David, sorry for the dose of reality.

 

I've found that Vodka helps, as does Gin.

 

Other than that, the only hope that film is people that are stubbornly determined to continue using it, professionally, as you and I have.

 

The hard part is when EVERYONE in your industry, every day, tries to convert you, and stops taking your work because it isn't digital, or doesn't want to pay you for film.

 

Alcohol helps for that too ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Karl-

 

(no offense taken) I think choosing a particular film stock or a particular digital format is EXACTLY like choosing a type of paint.

 

I would stop talking why you still have the chance Karl, too much of this jibber jabber and Kodak might have to send its emulsion police out to get you... Do you want to end up in the film press!? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Karl-

 

(no offense taken) I think choosing a particular film stock or a particular digital format is EXACTLY like choosing a type of paint.

 

But why is it still like choosing a certain paint when there is all this evidence by Karl going against your opinion? You didn't give out a single reason why it's exactly like that. Care to explain?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But why is it still like choosing a certain paint when there is all this evidence by Karl going against your opinion? You didn't give out a single reason why it's exactly like that. Care to explain?

 

No, no Benson. In that regard, he's right. Film is all about making a conscious choice, pre-production as to the "look" of your product.

 

I'm just stating the obvious that, while having choices is great, there needs to be volume to justify continued production of each one of those "choices".

 

It's like how Kodak used to offer a vast array of film stocks that had been unchanged since the '70s (sadly down to 2 or 3 now).

 

It used to be over a dozen.

 

Now, sure, these stocks are technically inferior to the new ones, but isn't it great to be able to get roughly the same look out of the box that they got in 1974, or a look that was roughly the same as news footage from the time of the Apollo program?

 

Sure, some people like digitally dickering around with this stuff instead. But, the only way to truely replicate a look, is to use that look.

 

I've actually just got through watching the Kodak DVD about their Vision2 line, and, believe it or not, I actually like the look of the original Vision stocks, seeing the two side-by-side, over Vision2, even Vision3.

 

Maybe the new '80 is a step back towards the look of '79, BUT, except for grain reduction, in every respect, I like Vision Stocks and EXR stock samples I've seen above Vision2 samples, because the look is *dialed in*.

 

Vision2 appears to be just a damned "telecine in" step by comparison. Sorry, but I spend enough time in front of one of these damned things every day. I don't like the prospects of stocks that basically need one of these damned things, a $200,000 scanner, and a $10,000 software package just to put the damned contrast back in!

 

In still photography, Kodak has basically covered up it's elimination of UC400 negative film by renaming UC100 "Ektar 100". It seems as though there is a real conscious effort on the part of this company to consolidate all of its films into a low-contrast, scanner-optimized category, and that is a shame.

 

Unfortunately, it looks like you are going to have to shoot slide film if you want to have a look right out of the box other than a low-contrast one that is easier to tweak in Photoshop :blink: Yawn. . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to paint...

 

Composition of burnt umber is Fe2O3 + MnO2

 

Christopher Walken claimed burnt umber as his favorite colour on the April 5th, 2008's episode of SNL.

 

The average human has one breast and one testicle. ~Des McHale

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Karl, you shot any 35? Or you work in a lab?

 

 

A.J, as far as 35mm cine, no. At least, not for myself. I've worked for one guy with a 35mm shoot. Plenty of 16mm too. I've shot a lot of 16mm VNF actually myself, and B&W. Actually no ECN-2 of any kind for my own projects. I'm a reversal kinda guy, obviously for cost reasons.

 

Still photography, yeah sure, probably tens of thousands of feet.

 

I've worked in two labs. Any reason why you want to know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, no Benson. In that regard, he's right. Film is all about making a conscious choice, pre-production as to the "look" of your product.

 

I'm just stating the obvious that, while having choices is great, there needs to be volume to justify continued production of each one of those "choices".

 

It's like how Kodak used to offer a vast array of film stocks that had been unchanged since the '70s (sadly down to 2 or 3 now).

 

It used to be over a dozen.

 

Now, sure, these stocks are technically inferior to the new ones, but isn't it great to be able to get roughly the same look out of the box that they got in 1974, or a look that was roughly the same as news footage from the time of the Apollo program?

 

Sure, some people like digitally dickering around with this stuff instead. But, the only way to truely replicate a look, is to use that look.

 

I've actually just got through watching the Kodak DVD about their Vision2 line, and, believe it or not, I actually like the look of the original Vision stocks, seeing the two side-by-side, over Vision2, even Vision3.

 

Maybe the new '80 is a step back towards the look of '79, BUT, except for grain reduction, in every respect, I like Vision Stocks and EXR stock samples I've seen above Vision2 samples, because the look is *dialed in*.

 

Vision2 appears to be just a damned "telecine in" step by comparison. Sorry, but I spend enough time in front of one of these damned things every day. I don't like the prospects of stocks that basically need one of these damned things, a $200,000 scanner, and a $10,000 software package just to put the damned contrast back in!

 

In still photography, Kodak has basically covered up it's elimination of UC400 negative film by renaming UC100 "Ektar 100". It seems as though there is a real conscious effort on the part of this company to consolidate all of its films into a low-contrast, scanner-optimized category, and that is a shame.

 

Unfortunately, it looks like you are going to have to shoot slide film if you want to have a look right out of the box other than a low-contrast one that is easier to tweak in Photoshop :blink: Yawn. . .

 

I stand corrected. Man, do I wish we had all those film stocks. The only thing that gets close to a wide variety of film stocks today is a digital intermediate. I'm not saying that DI is a bad thing, just that it isn't the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What can 35mm do that video can't?

 

I was just given an excerpt from the book "What I Really Want to Do: On Set in Hollywood" and I think it explains what makes 35mm more popular than digital video. Here's what it says.

 

"Traditional standard definition video has a definitive "sharpness" and looks "real" like you'd see the action as if you were actually standing there. Film has a "softer" almost more "ethereal" look. It is not capturing "reality" per se, but a more "romantic" and "hyper-real" version of what happened in front of the lens.

 

Some of this difference can be attributed to the variations in how film stock and how a video camera process the light. And some of the difference is on account of the frame rate that is used to capture images. Traditional standard definition video in the United States is shot and viewed at 30 frames per second, meaning that it takes roughly 30 still image frames in quick succession to represent one second of real time (29.97 fps to be more precise). A standard film frame rate is exactly 24 frames per second, a difference of merely 6 frames per second. What's the big deal? Plenty. Our eyes and our minds perceive that slight frames-per-second difference in significantly different ways. The higher the frame rate that you are viewing, the more "real" and "sharp" the image will be perceived by your mind. The slower the frame rate that you are viewing, the more your mind will perceive the moving images as "not as real."

 

This is why some programming is captured using film stock and some programming is captured using video technology. Generally, fictional narrative and "dramatic" programs are shot using film stock and film cameras. And generally, non-fiction or "live" events are shot using video cameras. For instance, all news programming now is shot using video technology for two reasons. The first is that the purpose of news is to give you a true sense of what is happening in reality. They don't (or shouldn't be trying to) dress up the world around us to make it seem more "romantic" or "hyper-real." Video is perceived as capturing a more authentic picture of what reality actually is, so it is the perfect medium for the job. The other reason that news programming and video work so well together is because of the immediacy that video offers. Because it is an electronic process, the images can be seen right away, as opposed to film stock, which must be "canned-out" of the camera, taken to a film lab for processing, and then printed for viewing. Video can either be sent "live" or can be saved for later viewing on videotape.

 

In contrast to news programming, most movies are shot on film, which gives the audience a slightly less-reality based version of what was going on in front of the camera. And because fictional entertainment doesn't have to be put on your television by 6 o'clock tonight, there is time to take film to the lab and go through the methodical process that eventually becomes a movie or dramatic TV show."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhm, good idea but VV can be 1.66:1, 1.85:1 and 2:1

 

IMAX Aspect ratio: 1.35:1 (camera), 1.43:1 (projected)

 

I would have to have black bars at top and bottom

 

I was referring to good old 5-perf 70mm.

 

Such as the restoration of 'Vertigo'. Even though it was shot 1.85:1, the 70mm prints were about 1.66:1, 1:1 optical printing. The 70mm re-release prints of 'The Ten Commandments' were slightly blow-up to 2.2:1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Digital projected cinema is not taking off as predicted, due to the high cost and short life of the equipment when compared to film projectors. And for a real dose of reality, technological advances happen in surges... as was the digital video surge of the past few years. With the world economy going down the tubes, I think we will be noticing the tech advances in digital leveling off for some time :P I saw a film in theater the other night shot on HD and digitally projected, it looked like stir fried crap. Super 16mm would have looked much more appealing.

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

Forum Sponsors

Visual Products

Film Gears

BOKEH RENTALS

CineLab

CINELEASE

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...