The main problem with digital is....

Jay Young · June 17, 2017

I'm working with a producer to raise $5000 for a short, which Kodak has generously discounted stock costs, but... no one is funding shorts, as said.

I had lunch with a Producer a few days ago. His information about the state of Kodak, film stock availability, and the industry as a whole was woefully out of date. He thought Kodak was going out of business very soon, and had no idea they had actually turned a profit in their Motion Picture division. His belief went so far as to say that there were only the few big directors who were able to buy film, like it wasn't available to anyone else stating that Kodak made a deal and after that no one would be able to get it.

Except that couldn't be farther from the truth. Talking with Kodak, it seems they have stock available, but they are being very careful about what they keep on the shelf.

This is a problem with producers that we need to correct.

Phil Rhodes · June 18, 2017

once you've edited 100s of hrs of digital footage have you really saved money?

Given that the editing is very nearly free these days... yes. Yes, you have. A lot. Yes.

P

Raissa Contreras · June 18, 2017

Oh I didn't realize editing was v nearly free. I was referring to Satsuki's comment "And if there's a DIT with their full-size cart on set, transcoding and grading everything and going into hours and hours of overtime to do it, I can't imagine that ends up being any cheaper than shipping a bunch of film cans to the lab for processing and scanning." And I would think editing costs. But maybe I am wrong.

And it's interesting but not at all surprising that many producers feel film is almost gone…sigh. I had read that Tarantino & Scorcese thankfully struck a deal to save film in the 11th hr. This article is 2015 - don't know what has transpired since. http://www.indiewire.com/2015/02/film-is-here-to-stay-studios-and-kodak-strike-a-deal-65440/

Juha Mattila · June 18, 2017

I remember that Lynch was talking about freedom not to have to cut and keeping the "flow" with the actors when hi was making INLAND EMPIRE. I wonder if he did it differently with Twin Peaks? I would imagine it would be very, very expensive to edit 18h show that was shot with out using slate. I think he is credited one of the editors.

If you look only acting performances, of course Inlands acting is phenomenal, but so is John Fords almost every movie and he edited in his camera...

George Ebersole · June 18, 2017

...that it breeds bad discipline.

Yesterday I shot a commercial where we racked up 8.5hrs of footage in one day. On a 12hr shooting day! Two cameras, and it was with kids, but still. Both were just rolling, all the time, indiscriminately. They never cut, prefer to walk into the scene and give direction, adjust wardrobe and makeup etc whilst cameras were rolling. Only time we had to break was for reloads. I just find it sloppy.

I've not been on a set in ages, but I've heard similar complaints and criticisms. And to be extremely and brutally honest, it shows in the final product. You can see where a director and crew took the time and care to set up a shot, and those who just let the cameras roll and shoved all the work of sorting it out to editors.

Most interesting.

Tyler Purcell · June 18, 2017

And it's interesting but not at all surprising that many producers feel film is almost gone…sigh. I had read that Tarantino & Scorcese thankfully struck a deal to save film in the 11th hr. This article is 2015 - don't know what has transpired since. http://www.indiewire.com/2015/02/film-is-here-to-stay-studios-and-kodak-strike-a-deal-65440/

I've heard the same story from many people in the industry, they somehow think that film is dead. Partially because they don't care, in their minds it is dead. All they can remember are the negatives of film, they aren't in the business of making art in most cases.

"Saving" motion picture film, came down to the studio's, not individuals. Sure, there was a lot of push from big filmmakers to come up with a deal (Abrams, Nolan, Anderson, Tarantino, Scorcese, etc) but it was the studio's who financed the deal, Warner Brothers having the largest stake, thanks to in part to Nolan and their management understanding how to make money off "film" presentations. The deal allowed Kodak to revamp their facility, tear down buildings and construct a new infrastructure. With an all-new management team, they've been able to create a completely sustainable business model. They don't really make much money off selling film, they make their money by leasing buildings at their facility. Kodak has become a landlord! So now they're literally good for quite a long time, no matter how good or bad film sales go.

In terms of "numbers", camera negative sales has nearly doubled in the last 2 years. (2015/2016) over the previous two (2013/2014). This year I bet the number is pretty strong thanks to 15 theatrically bound features shot on motion picture film thus far and a few TV shows. Kodak's numbers over-all have been down of course, due to the lack of film prints, which was their main business. However, thanks to Nolan and Anderson pushing their films to be distributed on film, we may see a push towards more theatrically released features on film as the years go on. I do know of a few things which I can't say in public, that are going on behind the scenes which will dramatically change this paradigm. I can't wait for Kodak to spill the beans so we can finally discuss it in public. Needless to say, the release of Dunkirk maybe the right time to do it, so fingers crossed!

Really, the only problems right now are the labs. There are a few "discount" labs, but the big guys are charging way too much money. Partially because they no longer make money off prints and partially because they're so big, they don't have quite enough processing to warrant making deals. This is a real hindrance and it's scary because it means a lot of big filmmakers who would normally shoot film, may not because they're concerned about the quality/speed of lab work and the studio's are concerned about being raked over the coals for pricing on that work. So there needs to be a better lab network and Kodak is slowly developing them.

Raissa Contreras · June 18, 2017

WOW!!! That's all so fascinating! Thank you for filling me in!!! V interesting re: Warner Bros and Kodak deal & Kodak becoming a landlord. Also interesting re: labs. It's hard to feel sorry for the big studios having to spend on processing but I can see how it would worry smaller filmmakers & totally understand their predicament.

I show a doc to my students Side by Side comparing digital to film & Nolan is the main film advocate in it. My students of course are all for digital…digital and CGI and then more CGI…LOL. But I digress…it is also v cool that Nolan figured out a way with Warner Bros to make money thru film presentations. And like I mentioned prev so happy Patty Jenkins has spoken out and that Wonder Woman has been such a huge financial success.

Really appreciate this thread & this dialogue!