The future of film cameras ...

[Robin R Probyn]

4 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

I take everything at face value, unless it's clearly a joke, which I didn't see in Robin's response. 

 

Yes only rattling your cage sir.. ? .. but I do think film will decline into even more of a niche that it is now.. but sure maybe it won't .. I mean being a black smith was a very popular job and they are still around.. but alot less..

[Robin R Probyn]

We have had this best selling electronic device sold in 2015 before haven't we.. and proved to be somewhat cherry picked to say the least..and actually sales from one specialist catalogue for one week or something along those lines... you really telling me that more record players were sold in 2015 than mobile phones, laptops,TV,s, tablets,fridges,micro waves, radio,s, .basically any electronic consumer device... .I mean record players must be a 1/100,000 of 1%.. at best.. 

[Tyler Purcell]

4 hours ago, Robin R Probyn said:

We have had this best selling electronic device sold in 2015 before haven't we.. and proved to be somewhat cherry picked to say the least..and actually sales from one specialist catalogue for one week or something along those lines... you really telling me that more record players were sold in 2015 than mobile phones, laptops,TV,s, tablets,fridges,micro waves, radio,s, .basically any electronic consumer device... .I mean record players must be a 1/100,000 of 1%.. at best.. 

There were caveats of course. If memory serves me, it was "home" electronics. Laptops, phones, tables, those are mobile devices. Microwave, fridges, toaster oven's, those are kitchen supplies. Record players fall into the vain of TV's, Media players, Hi-Fi equipment, etc. So the fact record players out paced TV's as the #1 seller for 2015 is quite astounding. It just shows how the march of technology has basically led way to less products being sold. Once ya got a 1080p LED backlit TV, when are you ever going to need an upgrade? Here state side, consumer electronic stores are basically all gone. In the last 5 years we've lost 3 of the biggest chains, we're basically down to one national chain; Best Buy and every time I go in there, the place is empty. I strongly believe Walmart, Target and Sams/Costco are going to be the last brick and mortar stores standing and one of them will surely acquire the others in time. Amazon may even buy all of it and become the mega store. 

All of that to say, it's not surprising record players were the hot ticket in the US for 2015. With electronic stores and sales in a downward spiral, what else would people buy but antique technology? 

As a side note, anyone remember Wall - E? Well that "single company that does everything" reality is coming very fast, especially when it comes to the household goods marketplace. 

[Robin R Probyn]

1 hour ago, Tyler Purcell said:

There were caveats of course. If memory serves me, it was "home" electronics. Laptops, phones, tables, those are mobile devices. Microwave, fridges, toaster oven's, those are kitchen supplies. Record players fall into the vain of TV's, Media players, Hi-Fi equipment, etc. So the fact record players out paced TV's as the #1 seller for 2015 is quite astounding. It just shows how the march of technology has basically led way to less products being sold. Once ya got a 1080p LED backlit TV, when are you ever going to need an upgrade? Here state side, consumer electronic stores are basically all gone. In the last 5 years we've lost 3 of the biggest chains, we're basically down to one national chain; Best Buy and every time I go in there, the place is empty. I strongly believe Walmart, Target and Sams/Costco are going to be the last brick and mortar stores standing and one of them will surely acquire the others in time. Amazon may even buy all of it and become the mega store. 

All of that to say, it's not surprising record players were the hot ticket in the US for 2015. With electronic stores and sales in a downward spiral, what else would people buy but antique technology? 

As a side note, anyone remember Wall - E? Well that "single company that does everything" reality is coming very fast, especially when it comes to the household goods marketplace. 

No way.. show me the evidence.. in 2015 more record players were sold ,in the US ,I presume.. than TV,s ..or desktop computers..  it was top of a list that says Home Electronic Devices..   I will have to quote the great John McEnroe .. "You cannot be serious ".. 

[Jon O'Brien]

Thing is, it's not kinda silly to see that, at the moment, for the sort of movies I like, digital can take a backseat. If one....day.......digital looks like film, then terrific, I'm all for it, I will throw my film cameras into the sea. There, their metal components will rapidly oxidise and become one with the sea in the ebb and flow of time. But for now, I'm into film and, man, you should know, it is uber cool.

I've always said digital is great for what it's great at. But for trying to be film? It should only try to be what it is. Just as we should try to be ourselves and not someone else.

Edited March 29, 2019 by Jon O'Brien

[Jon O'Brien]

Put Star Wars on the telly, DVD or Blu-ray. You know, the original one. Have a look at the shots of R2D2 and C-3PO as they walk along the corridors, and go into that other section of the spacecraft where they encounter the Princess. Especially note the closer up shots. Digital will never look like that. Never. Film has an earthy, 'etched', slightly gritty yet saturated, 'fat' sort of look. That would cost millions of bucks to generate entirely digitally, trying to cook up an organic photochemical celluloid image look from number crunching CPUs. It won't ever happen. Maybe not enough people out there care enough. But I think they do. Do common garden variety audiences note the beauty of oils and the European masters? My friends...yes, oh yes....they do.

[Jon O'Brien]

On 3/29/2019 at 5:42 AM, Tyler Purcell said:

None of the film guys give two shits about a new digital camera..

This is a profound truth.

[Tyler Purcell]

22 hours ago, Robin R Probyn said:

No way.. show me the evidence.. in 2015 more record players were sold ,in the US ,I presume.. than TV,s ..or desktop computers..  it was top of a list that says Home Electronic Devices..   I will have to quote the great John McEnroe .. "You cannot be serious ".. 

https://thevinylfactory.com/news/amazon-sold-more-turntables-home-audio-christmas/

https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/number-of-turntables-sold-by-year-chart.581498/

https://www.statista.com/chart/7699/lp-sales-in-the-united-states/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/billrosenblatt/2018/09/18/vinyl-is-bigger-than-we-thought-much-bigger/#1f1a6b201c9c

 

[Robin R Probyn]

"The number 1 household electronic device sold in 2015 were record players.".. so not exactly this or anywhere near it.. a xmas period mail-order catalogue for House Hold Audio Devices.. thats not the same as what you stated.. thank god you were never a lawyer ? 

[Tyler Purcell]

9 hours ago, Robin R Probyn said:

"The number 1 household electronic device sold in 2015 were record players.".. so not exactly this or anywhere near it.. a xmas period mail-order catalogue for House Hold Audio Devices.. thats not the same as what you stated.. thank god you were never a lawyer ? 

Yea I was wrong lol. Hey it was 3 years ago! hahaha 

[Jon O'Brien]

On 3/28/2019 at 9:20 PM, Robin R Probyn said:

... the dogs are off the leashes sir.. buy male hair bands and flannel .. trust me on this.. 

I always wanted to smoke a pipe. Just a little bit. You know, in a chair, on the verandah, watching the light changing...

[Todd Anderson]

On 3/28/2019 at 1:58 AM, Tyler Purcell said:

Yet, there are two other manufacturers of film going on line in the next few years 

Besides Ferrania out of Italy, whom is the other company that is in line to start making motion picture film in the new few years? And which country do they reside in? Are there any more details, such as formats (16mm / 35mm) and the speed of the stocks they plan to introduce? Color or just B&W? Very interested to know. Thanks!

[Tim Smyth]

On 3/28/2019 at 4:58 AM, Tyler Purcell said:

I think the "ruthless thrust of technology" has already happened. 

Theaters are digital 
Distribution is entirely digital 
Long term storage is digital 

I don't think that s quite true Tyler, I do believe they make film prints of all the films for long term storage, so that if anything bad should happen, they can always digitize the print later on.

 

If film is to last, then at some point some company/ies will have to start producing new cameras. I think Bolex still may make cameras on demand, or I may have dreamed that.

[Jon O'Brien]

One would think that modern factory digitization could only help new fabrication of analogue-era type technology (eg. cogs and wheels and physical things like that). I could imagine some tech person getting an Arri geared part with complex helical design and plonking it in a 3D scanner, analysing to the nth degree on screen to within a thousandth of an inch or less (whatever level of precision is required), dialling in the ideal steel alloy recipe needed, and computers go to work to mill the parts. Casting, too. I'm not talking a factory set up for just cameras - I mean a company with infrasructure already in place to mill whatever kind of part you want. Including film gates. Yes, they'd need to employ staff who were film camera experts. I would think this is doable, economically. Arri could do it, if it's economic to do so. Interest in film seems to be regaining some ground in the world ...

[Jon O'Brien]

On 3/28/2019 at 11:31 AM, Tyler Purcell said:

(Panavision's) new upper management has given a decree that any film cameras that come back to them broken, are going to be either destroyed or dismantled for parts... The only good news for now is their staff are very into film cameras...They literally give away Gold II bodies with lens rentals, so they aren't really making much. 

Didn't Panavision build two shiny new 35mm cameras for 'The Force Awakens' and later SW pictures? If true, that speaks of an active, creative and 'industrial' commitment to film hardware in  their camera division.

[Tyler Purcell]

6 hours ago, Tim Smyth said:

I don't think that s quite true Tyler, I do believe they make film prints of all the films for long term storage, so that if anything bad should happen, they can always digitize the print later on. So today, everything is stored digitally, even restoration's are NOT printed back to film. It's causing a huge uproar in the archiving industry because frankly, digital is not a long-term storage solution. However, lasering movies to film is very expensive and time consuming. So it's just a matter of economics in the long run. For a long time, people tried to record digital data onto film. Heck, I developed my own helical scan system of reading and writing to film, but even with super low ISO stock, the best resolution that could be achieved was around (15nm or 25nm don't remember), which wasn't enough to make it worth while. New stocks would have to be developed that would employ a tighter grain structure. 

 

If film is to last, then at some point some company/ies will have to start producing new cameras. I think Bolex still may make cameras on demand, or I may have dreamed that.

They actually just stopped making separation prints a few years ago. It's part of what caused Fuji to stop making B&W stock. I'm unaware of anyone making separation prints anymore. 

The reason why people can afford to shoot film is partially the cameras being so inexpensive. If someone were to make a new sync sound 16mm camera, it would be $50-$80k easily and no rental houses would invest. I don't know if you know, but there have been attempts to make new cameras, all of them met with failure. I have been told by many people, there are some new cameras on the horizon, but outside of Logmar's 65mm camera, which won't be ready for primetime for quite some time, I don't see anyone pushing that market. 

Bolex makes new cameras, but they're like 5k euro's. 

[Tyler Purcell]

7 hours ago, Todd Anderson said:

Besides Ferrania out of Italy, whom is the other company that is in line to start making motion picture film in the new few years? And which country do they reside in? Are there any more details, such as formats (16mm / 35mm) and the speed of the stocks they plan to introduce? Color or just B&W? Very interested to know. Thanks!

I'm not allowed to spill the beans with names and such, the deals are in the works. Lets just say, when it happens, it should really change the paradigm with color camera negative. 

[Tyler Purcell]

6 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

One would think that modern factory digitization could only help new fabrication of analogue-era type technology (eg. cogs and wheels and physical things like that). I could imagine some tech person getting an Arri geared part with complex helical design and plonking it in a 3D scanner, analysing to the nth degree on screen to within a thousandth of an inch or less (whatever level of precision is required), dialling in the ideal steel alloy recipe needed, and computers go to work to mill the parts. Casting, too. I'm not talking a factory set up for just cameras - I mean a company with infrasructure already in place to mill whatever kind of part you want. Including film gates. Yes, they'd need to employ staff who were film camera experts. I would think this is doable, economically. Arri could do it, if it's economic to do so. Interest in film seems to be regaining some ground in the world ...

Why did Aaton fold? The Penelope was already one of the best 35mm cameras made and so was the Xtera? The demand for NEW expensive cameras is not there. 

[Tyler Purcell]

7 minutes ago, Jon O'Brien said:

Didn't Panavision build two shiny new 35mm cameras for 'The Force Awakens' and later SW pictures? If true, that speaks of an active, creative and 'industrial' commitment to film hardware in  their camera division.

I'm unaware of new cameras, the XL2 had been around for a long time prior. 

[Jon O'Brien]

What does a movie, shot on 2 or 3 perf, look like on the big screen when printed onto 35mm print stock via a DI and exhibited on a film projector? Does it look great? Is it almost as good a look as all-photochemical workflow and projection eg. 4 perf anamorphic?

Reason I ask is that 4 perf cameras may eventually become more rare than 2 and 3 perf conversions.

Edited April 4, 2019 by Jon O'Brien

[Todd Anderson]

9 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

I'm not allowed to spill the beans with names and such, the deals are in the works. Lets just say, when it happens, it should really change the paradigm with color camera negative. 

That is good news to my ears. If I may ask, when you say "it is in the works", is this still something that is happening "for certain" with just some details that need to be ironed out before a official public announcement? Or, is there a possibly the deal could still fall through and your understanding is more along the lines of, "this is very likely to happen, but not just certain yet"?

[Tyler Purcell]

1 hour ago, Todd Anderson said:

That is good news to my ears. If I may ask, when you say "it is in the works", is this still something that is happening "for certain" with just some details that need to be ironed out before a official public announcement? Or, is there a possibly the deal could still fall through and your understanding is more along the lines of, "this is very likely to happen, but not just certain yet"?

It's a long road to making your own film. There are only a few places in the world that still make film and getting one of those places to make a custom film, is hard. We've been negotiating for quite a while and I believe the only setback right now is getting the raw materials to the facility that are required to make a test batch. I haven't talked to the other members of the team in a while, but I'm sure next time they're in town, I'll track them down and see what's going on. I have a feeling some of the raw materials are going to be hard to get in small quantities for testing purposes, that's probably part of the delay. This is for sure going to happen, it's just a matter of doing a test batch, making sure its good and then finding the money (around a million dollars) to get into production. Luckily, the business people involved have excellent financial resources. 

[Tyler Purcell]

11 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

What does a movie, shot on 2 or 3 perf, look like on the big screen when printed onto 35mm print stock via a DI and exhibited on a film projector? Does it look great? Is it almost as good a look as all-photochemical workflow and projection eg. 4 perf anamorphic?

Reason I ask is that 4 perf cameras may eventually become more rare than 2 and 3 perf conversions.

Last 2 perf movie I saw that was done photochemically looked like complete crap. I don't know where they did the blow up work, but it was bad. I mean if you're after that 1980's soft look, than I guess? If you watch David Mullins "Love Witch" on 35mm, it was sharp as a tack, looked exactly how it's supposed to look. 

Frankly, I don't think you can do a photochemical finish from anything but 4 perf and have it come out good. The reason is quite simple... you can make prints directly off the camera negative with 4 perf. With 2 perf, you're having to make the image anamorphic. So you're going through the optical printer and doing your color timing at the same time. Theoretically, you could strike an answer print right then and there, but you can't add the soundtrack layer. So you're having to make an IP no matter what, then adding the soundtrack onto the IN and striking prints from the IN. The process for 3 perf is much the same since it's a WIDER image. You'd be doing an optical pass, then making an IP and IN to strike prints with soundtrack from. If you do 1:1 4 perf to 4 perf, no matter what aspect ratio you choose, the prints are going to be exactly what the negative is. 

Scanning your film at 5k (which is pretty standard these days) doing the entire post process in 4k and lasering it back to film at 4k, gives you a beautiful internegative, that's super crisp and the prints could possibly retain around 3k worth of information, which is quite good for 35mm. The blow up's talked about above, they're around 1200 lines of resolution. 

The best way to watch films shot on 35mm is actually with a photochemical blow up to 70mm. Since the format uses digital audio and only needs timecode put on the rolls, it's easier to do a 35mm to 70mm blow up and then add the digital data in since it's not between the sprockets. Thus, you can actually make a limited amount of theatrical prints from 35mm masters to 70mm without these issues and have nearly equal quality to the original 35mm camera negative. The losses with 35mm blow up's are nearly non-existent. 

 

[Todd Anderson]

3 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

It's a long road to making your own film. There are only a few places in the world that still make film and getting one of those places to make a custom film, is hard. We've been negotiating for quite a while and I believe the only setback right now is getting the raw materials to the facility that are required to make a test batch. I haven't talked to the other members of the team in a while, but I'm sure next time they're in town, I'll track them down and see what's going on. I have a feeling some of the raw materials are going to be hard to get in small quantities for testing purposes, that's probably part of the delay. This is for sure going to happen, it's just a matter of doing a test batch, making sure its good and then finding the money (around a million dollars) to get into production. Luckily, the business people involved have excellent financial resources. 

Again, that is all good news. And I can understand the complexities and difficulties with such a project. If these questions are possible to answer, can you tell me if the production of this particular motion film stock (by this team), if the plan / solution  in place — looking towards the next few decades — is something that could be indefinitely produced? Meaning, that you do not see any holes in the infrastructure that would cause an issue? For example, that the parent company or facility that has the actual equipment and means to make the film stock is not dependent on the revenue of making these small batches of motion film to survive? That they have other vertical markets — an industrial market, etc. — that is thriving and what is simply taking place is that they are just doing this on the top of their other business model (I assume, that these will just be small productions runs now and again that your team contacts them to run for you)?

[Tyler Purcell]

1 hour ago, Todd Anderson said:

Again, that is all good news. And I can understand the complexities and difficulties with such a project. If these questions are possible to answer, can you tell me if the production of this particular motion film stock (by this team), if the plan / solution  in place — looking towards the next few decades — is something that could be indefinitely produced? Meaning, that you do not see any holes in the infrastructure that would cause an issue? For example, that the parent company or facility that has the actual equipment and means to make the film stock is not dependent on the revenue of making these small batches of motion film to survive? That they have other vertical markets — an industrial market, etc. — that is thriving and what is simply taking place is that they are just doing this on the top of their other business model (I assume, that these will just be small productions runs now and again that your team contacts them to run for you)?

The company doing the work for us, has been making film for other markets for decades, so there is no concern about them going out of business. I'm not sure how many batches we would run honestly. It maybe a one off thing to test the waters and could be a complete failure. It could also sell very well and we could continue making more. My guess is, we'd start with one batch (which is one long sheet cut into rolls) and try selling them. See what the results are and based on that, make more.