Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Robin R Probyn said:

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 ???

Why does how much film someone shoots per year, have anything to do with their knowledge of pricing? 

There is no BS, no lies, just straight information. 

Edited by Tyler Purcell
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 138
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Well they don't have to worry about that anymore  , Tyler has clearly stated Silver is  a very stable priced commodity ... weirdly in contradiction with the worlds commodity traders ..   according to

Why argue about such thing? After all, for those who want to shoot on film only thing that matters is sustainability of film manufacturing and availability of film & cameras. It's all relativ

Covid has destroyed the film market, totally obliterating what little bit of it existed. Companies like Kodak, can't stay afloat by selling camera negative, they make their money on print stock. Since

Posted Images

8 hours ago, Robin R Probyn said:

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 .. 

Correct, my camera assistants set it up with the help of the rental house, who specializes in Sony. 

If they couldn't figure it out, then we're in big trouble. 

I attacked Sony, not you... I never complained about you personally. I complained about Sony being difficult for no reason.

But you attack me personally and my abilities when a whole bunch of people couldn't figure it out. 

Mind you, I've had DOZENS of other major issues from firmware failures to dust between the imager and the imager protector. Heck, we've had issues with certain cards not working on certain readers. The XAVC codec, not working on several editorial software packages, etc. I could go on all day. 

So don't give me one reason on why Sony cameras are crap, please. I work with every other camera system and have had NONE of these issues. 

Edited by Tyler Purcell
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

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. 

It was you that added stills film to the topic, along with Instant film, if I remember rightly. You evidently thought it was relevant then.

14 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Don't you think it's worth mentioning that I've owned over 30 cameras? 

Actually, no I don't. Any fool can buy a camera.

15 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

You are the one threatening me about my comments. 

Threatening? Does being challenged make you feel threatened, Tyler? Maybe you should do less lying.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Stuart Brereton said:

It was you that added stills film to the topic, along with Instant film, if I remember rightly. You evidently thought it was relevant then.

You had said film was a niche format. I was correcting you on that. 

That nothing to do with the price of silver.

Two totally different subjects. 

5 minutes ago, Stuart Brereton said:

Actually, no I don't. Any fool can buy a camera.

Well good because it wasn't directed at you. 

5 minutes ago, Stuart Brereton said:

Threatening? Does being challenged make you feel threatened, Tyler? Maybe you should do less lying.

There is just no reason for it. 

Also again, I have never lied about anything, ever. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Simon Wyss said:

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

It's for these information nuggets I come to this site, not for the bickering. Thank you Simon ♥

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Where I haven’t even been all too precise, it should be registering movement. A Bell & Howell Eyemo is also a professional camera but doesn’t have a register pin. And to a reversal stock for origination: the advantage is that it can save an intermediate generation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Simon Wyss said:

Where I haven’t even been all too precise, it should be registering movement. A Bell & Howell Eyemo is also a professional camera but doesn’t have a register pin. And to a reversal stock for origination: the advantage is that it can save an intermediate generation.

Would it work on an Arri 2C?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Possibly unsteady, the Arriflex has a claw tip that fits BH ISO N type perforation. The issue will be the dry film. To cover the pressure plate with velvet could help.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

You had said film was a niche format. I was correcting you on that. 

That nothing to do with the price of silver.

Two totally different subjects. 

You weren’t correcting anyone, you were arguing over the definition of niche, something that wouldn’t even have been necessary had you bothered to check a dictionary before you opened your mouth.

if you’d actually read the original posts in this thread before you butted in, you would know that Karim and I were talking about film in general terms. In fact, Karim mentions stills film in the second line of his original post. Later on, I specifically referenced Harman Photographic’s silver related problems with production of stills film. You would know this too, if you hadn’t been so busy trying prove what an “expert” you are on all things film related. 
 

No one likes a know it all, and that’s exactly what you are. You barged into this thread, like you have so many others, claiming expertise, claiming insider knowledge, telling anyone who disagreed with you that they could “find the exit”. All the while mouthing off like a firehose of misinformation. And now you complain that you’re being picked on, as you always do when you’re challenged. Why is it always me, you ask. Why indeed.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Stuart Brereton said:

All the while mouthing off like a firehose of misinformation. And now you complain that you’re being picked on, as you always do when you’re challenged. 

Challenged? You offered zero data. I presented the graphs, I presented the pricing information, I presented the experience. You simply disagreed and said my information was wrong.. So yes, the door is to stage right and if you want take the stage, offer something other than your opinion. The graphs don't lie. It's not my fault if you don't how to take a graph and draw a line on it, then compare it to inflation. It's not my fault if you don't know the historical data that I presented. 

Edited by Tyler Purcell
  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/5/2021 at 7:38 PM, Tyler Purcell said:

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

[...]

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

1. Nothing has intrinsic value. During the gold rush in Australia in the 19th century, white settlers got infected with gold fever, while the Aborigines wondered what the fuss was about. 😉

2. Thank you for the feedback. That all makes sense. 

On 2/6/2021 at 12:25 AM, Simon Wyss said:

Also, movie films are made on thinner bases, if you compare.

Ooh, that's interesting. How many extra frames does that equate to in a 135 cassette?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2021 at 6:34 PM, Karim D. Ghantous said:

1. Nothing has intrinsic value. During the gold rush in Australia in the 19th century, white settlers got infected with gold fever, while the Aborigines wondered what the fuss was about. 😉

 

I was going to say the same thing. Gold just looks pretty and it doesn't tarnish. It's practical because it's easily identified by appearance, malleability and weight. It can be easily scratched or cut to check that its solid gold. You can't eat it though and it isn't much good as a spear thrower or spear tip or digger. With farming came banking. Or something like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/10/2021 at 4:04 PM, Jon O'Brien said:

I was going to say the same thing. Gold just looks pretty and it doesn't tarnish. It's practical because it's easily identified by appearance, malleability and weight. It can be easily scratched or cut to check that its solid gold. You can't eat it though and it isn't much good as a spear thrower or spear tip or digger. With farming came banking. Or something like that.

GD...this sounds more like a survival forum than cinetogs.

The problem with gold is it too $$. An ounce is like $2,000. Can't buy a bottle of water with your oz of gold. A better barter thing nowadays is bullets or 90% silver dimes. 

I'd say film is pretty dead with still cams. Can't say about movies. For me, it is all film with my archival work. Got close to a million feet now. You guys should find some charts to support your theories of film making a comeback. That is all they talk about on the vintage cam forums. 

Tri X used to be $7 a roll back in the day. Now...

Kodak Professional Tri-X 400 Black and White Negative 1067214 (bhphotovideo.com)

100 feet of 16mm is crazy!

Kodak Tri-X Black-and-White Reversal Film #7266 8012270 B&H (bhphotovideo.com)

I'm voting that film is a niche market, at least with still photogs. You can hash it out with movie film.

Look at this crazy thing...you gota buy 114 rolls minimum!

Kodak 2383 VISION Color Print Film Roll (35mm, 6000') 1198043 (bhphotovideo.com)

Edited by Daniel D. Teoli Jr.
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Daniel D. Teoli Jr. said:

The problem with gold is it too $$. An ounce is like $2,000. Can't buy a bottle of water with your oz of gold. A better barter thing nowadays is bullets or 90% silver dimes. 

Well yea, this is why silver is great, because you can break it down into smaller amounts much easier. A gold coin, has way too much value. 

16 minutes ago, Daniel D. Teoli Jr. said:

I'd say film is pretty dead with still cams.

I mean literally everyone I know who shoots stills, shoots on film as well as digital. Every single person. This includes people all over the world, not just the US. 

16 minutes ago, Daniel D. Teoli Jr. said:

You guys should find some charts to support your theories of film making a comeback. That is all they talk about on the vintage cam forums. 

I mean how do you chart it? Film had a dip during the last economic downturn and it's been slowly equalizing since. Obviously this current economic downturn will do damage. So it's hard to really quantify it. The only real way is to do a survey of photographers and cinematographers world wide. The problem is tracking them down. Still photographers who shoot as a hobby, aren't exactly difficult to find on the streets of any given city, but they are hard to find online sometimes. SO yea, I mean if you had a database of everyone, it would be easy. You also can't base new film sales on anything, I don't know anyone who shoots new film. They all have huge collections of film they bought on eBay. Heck, most of the film I've shot/sold over the years was all re-cans and older stock as well. So the numbers coming from the factories, don't mean much. Plus you've got all the people processing at home as well. So numbers can be very screwy. 

16 minutes ago, Daniel D. Teoli Jr. said:

I'm voting that film is a niche market, at least with still photogs. You can hash it out with movie film.

I mean if film is niche, then so are electric cars. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

I mean literally everyone I know who shoots stills, shoots on film as well as digital. Every single person. This includes people all over the world, not just the US. 

This is, of course, the way all reliable statistics are compiled...

8 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

You also can't base new film sales on anything, So the numbers coming from the factories, don't mean much. 

Yes, why on on earth would you think that film manufacturers sales figures had anything to do with how much film was being used? Crazy.

Anecdotal observations, hearsay, and unprovable statistics are always a much more compelling argument than actual facts, after all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2021 at 9:34 AM, Karim D. Ghantous said:

Ooh, that's interesting. How many extra frames does that equate to in a 135 cassette?

None. The counter of most cameras for 135 film will end at 36. The difference in base thickness is small, about a thou or so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Stuart Brereton said:

Anecdotal observations, hearsay, and unprovable statistics are always a much more compelling argument than actual facts, after all.

Oh so you always buy new film? Come on. I haven't shot a roll of NEW still film in 20 years. 

Edited by Tyler Purcell
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Oh so you always buy new film? Come on. I haven't shot a roll of NEW still film in 20 years. 

Really, that's weird, because on 02/04 you told me I had no right to an opinion if I hadn't bought film recently. Seems you haven't either.

Then on 02/05, you claimed that you were one of the people keeping Kodak in business, but now you're saying that you shoot mostly recans and short-ends, so I guess that wasn't true either.

You contradict yourself with every other post. I guess it's hard to keep your story straight when you do so much lying and exaggeration.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Stuart Brereton said:

Really, that's weird, because on 02/04 you told me I had no right to an opinion if I hadn't bought film recently. Seems you haven't either.

This new discussion that Daniel started, is about still film, not motion picture film. We are now talking about something entirely different. 

So yes, when it comes to motion picture film, which is again a different industry entirely, since you don't shoot with it, then how can you give any input? 

10 minutes ago, Stuart Brereton said:

Then on 02/05, you claimed that you were one of the people keeping Kodak in business, but now you're saying that you shoot mostly recans and short-ends, so I guess that wasn't true either.

Again, the comment above is about STILL FILM.

Since we're focused on 16mm, re-can's and short ends, simply don't exist. So I can't even shoot with them to begin with. 

With 35mm motion picture film, I have shot one short film on re-can's, but most of the older film I get, I resell to buy new stock. 

I personally shoot tens of thousands of feet of new film a year. My clients, shoot quite a bit as well. 

10 minutes ago, Stuart Brereton said:

You contradict yourself with every other post. I guess it's hard to keep your story straight when you do so much lying and exaggeration.

Never a single contradiction. You just didn't catch that Daniel had changed the subject of this thread. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, still film was previously mentioned here, so I  talked about it. 

Freestyle used to sell odd ball repackaged expired 35mm movie film for still photogs. About $1.50 per hundred feet back in the 70's. They were specialists in repacking surplus expired media.

Film seems to be on a one-way $$ trajectory...UP.  If anyone has some graphs showing otherwise, lets see em. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

12 hours ago, Simon Wyss said:

None. The counter of most cameras for 135 film will end at 36. The difference in base thickness is small, about a thou or so.

Okay, so the thickness isn't significant. Fair enough. I know that some films have very thin bases, although they're a minority. I think they use polyester.

BTW the frame counter is just a counter, not a limiter. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Daniel D. Teoli Jr. said:

Film seems to be on a one-way $$ trajectory...UP.  If anyone has some graphs showing otherwise, lets see em. 

I mean yea, it's a labor intensive manufactured product which has less demand, thus higher cost. 

One could say the same thing with video tapes. Have you tried to buy a new HDCAM SR tape? Wanna talk about crazy prices. 

Reel to reel and standard old cassette tapes, same issues, crazy high prices. 

Heck, vinyl records have had a huge comeback recently, but the prices are crazy. I'm buying new albums for $32 - $50 on average. 

So I don't get why graphs would be necessary. Everything related to old tech has skyrocketed in recent years.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

9 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

I personally shoot tens of thousands of feet of new film a year. My clients, shoot quite a bit as well. 

This you?

On 2/12/2021 at 1:23 AM, Tyler Purcell said:

I don't know anyone who shoots new film.... most of the film I've shot/sold over the years was all re-cans

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...