A big blow to film production at Kodak and Fuji

We went to a movie theater that was all digital and a thunderstorm brewed up that shut the whole place down. The movie we were watching was never restarted, they just gave us passes to come back, which we haven't done yet. A film projector wouldn't be bothered by a storm surge like that.

Power surges can affect movie theaters whether they use digital projector or film. The automation systems, essentially PLC-based machine controllers, can be shut down by power surges just as easily as computers and digital projectors can. The difference is that film projectors can be restarted much faster and easier. Just cycle the power and hit start. You might have to press a few extra buttons to cycle the automation to the right state but, once you have it running, it should just keep right on going from where it left off. A digital projector depends on its computer memory to play the digital movie file. If it loses power it can easily lose its place and it will have to be started over from the beginning. I do not believe that digital theater systems have the ability to fast-forward through the digital files. I believe it's all or nothing.

Remember, once a movie has stopped for any length of time, regardless of whether it is film or digital, you take a chance of pushing that presentation over into the next showtime slot. Suppose a movie starts at 12:00 noon and runs till 2:30 PM. The next show starts at 2:45 or 3:00 PM, depending on how the theater stacks its schedule. Therefore, if your projector goes down for longer than 15 or 30 minutes you are going to have to delay the next show. You will have a lobby full of impatient customers, wanting to sit down and see the movie they paid for.

So, regardless of whether you use film or digital projectors, a power surge might force you to cancel a show.

The smart theater owner will install power surge protection equipment in every theater. Unfortunately, there aren't a whole lot of theater owners who are that smart. Power surges do put a lot of theaters out of commission.

lxdude is on the right track. If theaters keep going the way they have been going, most of them will go the way of the dodo.
Crappy presentation, regardless of film or digital, and poor customer service will cause more and more customers to stay home and wait for the movie to come out on home video.

That is more of a threat to film than digital projector or 3-D will be.

ntenny said:

But I bet the film consumption for making prints for distribution to theatres is a whole lot higher than the film consumption for shooting the original footage.

I've done a little bit of work with digital cinema, though I'm not very plugged into it now. IMHO, it's clear that *distribution* will eventually go all- or nearly-all-digital eventually, for purely economic reasons, and the current 3D craze is giving that migration a significant bump just now. However, it seems like many people in what L.A. calls "The Industry" prefer to *shoot* on film and convert to digital, and the studios still use film as their archival format. As long as those two things are true, the demand for cine film won't go to *zero*---but losing the demand for film prints could put a serious dent in it, with attendant problems for Kodak and Fuji.

-NT

Click to expand...

The word missing in your take on "the industry" is "capture." Steve Jobs wants to stream everything into your house.If not him, then Google or some other gang of elf lords and their pals.Film still works for shooting a movie, which should be obvious if you've actually seen anything bound for a big screen shot recently. They use film. Lots of it. Is emulsion research dead for cine film? How much cine film did Kodak move last year? What do their financial statements tell us?

Well, I actually was thinking of a point where a large monitor type screen could be installed in a theater and the signal fed to it cheaper than going through the steps of projection.
I do think home video will put great pressure on movies at some point. No more talkers, no more crinkling candy wrappers or drinks spilled on you. And if someone else starts babbling you can tell them to STFU because, hey, they're family.

By the way, why is a 100 sheet box of Kodak 8x10 XRay film with two emulsions $26.00 while 100 sheets of Kodak 8x10 general photography film with one emulsion $550.00, 10 boxes of 10 sheets?

Click to expand...

Have you ever shot xray film? Whatever it is that they do to pictorial film to make it look good, well, they don't do that to xray film.

Theaters should be charging a extra for film. It's the last thing that will differentiate them from home theater. Even 3D is hitting home theater now.

You guys can argue all you want. Actually, no one is wrong and no one is right either. The fact remains though that the movie studios are ordering a LOT less print film with the excuse of doing digital distribution of 3D films. Fad or not, it does decrease film production.

So, my advice is this: Do not depend on the Cine industry to support analog. We must support analog. Go and buy and use film!

PE

MaximusM3 said:

I can't stand 3D movies. Just gives me a massive headache and not worth it one bit for me.

Click to expand...

I can't even see the 3D, so the extra money isn't worth it at all.

Photo Engineer said:

You guys can argue all you want. Actually, no one is wrong and no one is right either. The fact remains though that the movie studios are ordering a LOT less print film with the excuse of doing digital distribution of 3D films. Fad or not, it does decrease film production.

So, my advice is this: Do not depend on the Cine industry to support analog. We must support analog. Go and buy and use film!

PE

Click to expand...

How much revenue did cine film sales generate for Kodak over the past five years? You're making a time series argument here with no data to indicate a trend. Care to quantify "a LOT?" Otherwise, your "argument" doesn't cut much ice.

CGW said:

How much revenue did cine film sales generate for Kodak over the past five years? You're making a time series argument here with no data to indicate a trend. Care to quantify "a LOT?" Otherwise, your "argument" doesn't cut much ice.

Click to expand...

For my part, I have no doubt as to the validity of this information, given his former employer. Nor do I wonder why he would be vague about the numbers, which perhaps weren't divulged and undoubtedly aren't for public consumption.

-Laura

The majority of films you see I the theater originated on film. There's no good way to store video long term and it's got it's limitations in production. Amc will switch all it's projectors over. Read this:
http://www.bigscreen.com/journal.php?id=1448

Photo Engineer said:

So, my advice is this: Do not depend on the Cine industry to support analog. We must support analog. Go and buy and use film!

Click to expand...

No argument there, certainly. From what you've said here and in the past, I get the impression that Kodak (and maybe Fuji) are in danger of getting into a situation where their economies of scale make it *more* difficult for them to do business successfully---they can make lots of film, but the facilities are so geared to high volume that they almost literally can't make small amounts. And it seems like that's the danger here---not that the demand will go to zero, but that it will go low enough that Kodak and/or Fuji can no longer service it profitably.

Another question is whether, if Kodak or Fuji dropped out of C-41, someone else would step in at the smaller scale that the market could support. I guess Ilford prove that it's possible to make a go of it as a pure-film business with a high-quality product, but I don't have enough insight to say if their model generalises well to colour. (They used to have some colour films, didn't they?)

-NT

(responding to me)

CGW said:

The word missing in your take on "the industry" is "capture." Steve Jobs wants to stream everything into your house.If not him, then Google or some other gang of elf lords and their pals.Film still works for shooting a movie, which should be obvious if you've actually seen anything bound for a big screen shot recently. They use film. Lots of it. Is emulsion research dead for cine film? How much cine film did Kodak move last year? What do their financial statements tell us?

Click to expand...

You sound like you're disagreeing with me, but I can't tell why. This is basically what I said, isn't it? Movies are largely still shot on film, but distributed in digital; that reduces demand for film stock, though not to zero.

-NT

CGW said:

How much revenue did cine film sales generate for Kodak over the past five years? You're making a time series argument here with no data to indicate a trend. Care to quantify "a LOT?" Otherwise, your "argument" doesn't cut much ice.

Click to expand...

I cannot be held responsible for your missing my previous estimates taken from reputable publications, but Cine accounted for anywhere from 60% - 80% of Kodak's production. (Not my estimate but close... Read Bob Shanebrook's book instead!) Cine is basically outselling all other film production in the entire world! This is a fact. (maybe I should say "was outselling", IDK)

Suffice it to say that the current figures are plummeting for both Kodak and Fuji! And this is in just the US market so far as 3D does not seem to be important WW yet.

Many posts here suggest that Cine supports us analog photographers, and it has been true, but if what I was told is correct, then that must change. We must support analog ourselves.

PE

CGW said:

How much revenue did cine film sales generate for Kodak over the past five years? You're making a time series argument here with no data to indicate a trend. Care to quantify "a LOT?" Otherwise, your "argument" doesn't cut much ice.

Click to expand...

Why should PE have to furnish all that to you? Cine film is very big at Kodak. That's a known here. How big? Look at the Kodak quarterly and yearly reports. Film has been supporting digital. That is, digital has shown losses and film has shown profit. At this time Kodak cannot survive without its film business. Digital can't even support its own R&D without film paying the bills. Cine film is the largest part of Kodak's production.
Look at the reports and draw your own conclusions.

And fergawd's sake, would it kill people to cut PE a little slack? He isn't just another lunk like the rest of us with little or no direct knowledge of the film business. I'm not saying never question something he says, but geez...

.
I appreciated the novelty of Avatar 3D.
But, I won't be falling for That Olde Trick anytime soon.
Maybe when I have grandchildren, they might be entertained
by such nonsense. It's childish gimmickery, being as prizes are
no longer provided in cereal boxes as a motivational distraction.


Ron
.

Isn't Bollywood one of the largest consumers of cine film?

Bollywood 3D! Ohmy..

It goes without saying that an industry as big as Hollywood has a say in where film goes. I have several clients and personal friends deep in the Hollywood scene, actors, produces, cinematographers, light men, etc.. ALL of them hate digital. I am told the 'bean-counters' make this decision and it usually comes down to speed [delivery of the image]. Film production adds only a small cost increase to the total bill of a film/movie. At the end of the day with all the added things digital output is the cost savings in minimal.
I dont know much about 3D, I think it's just a fad, but IMAX has to be on film. It is also true that ALL movies are archived on film stock.
I was talking to a friend about the use of the RED1 on his show.. his only reply about this was.. 'lame'. From an art perspective, no one is liking the digital look.

Another problem is, as a whole, what is left of the film industry there isn't an all-around support of each other. There is too much bickering, jealousy and disrespect.

Policar said:

Film prints are very, very expensive to manufacture and ship and not too durable. And they're worth nothing after a film's first run. They degrade in quality fast and require some skill to project. The industry is moving fast toward digital projection, motivated by the cost of prints and shipping, 3d, the fact that most film prints are from digital sources, etc. In many ways digital looks much better, too--the resolution is superior and almost all films are timed 100% digitally so there's one step less generational loss, though black levels remain considerably poorer.

Click to expand...

In terms of actual cost of film and processing, an average 35mm film print costs a couple-few thousand dollars. By agreement between Technicolor and United Parcel Service, a movie costs about $60.00 to ship one way. ($120.00 round trip.) The cost of the film print is built in to the first run rental agreement. The theater pays for the prints as part of the price of getting the film. The cost of the film prints is already made up for when the movie hits the screen for the first time.

Do you realize that most of the price of a movie ticket goes to back to the movie studios? If the average price of a ticket costs $10.00, the studio gets about $8.00 or $9.00. The theater gets $1.00 or $2.00. That's why popcorn costs so damn much. A movie theater is little more than a popcorn stand that just happens to show movies in order to entice people in.

Move theaters run on a per-capita profit model.
They tally up the number of tickets they sold that day.
Then they add up all the money they made selling popcorn. They total up the money they made at the box office then subtract the studio's take. (80% - 90% in favor of the studio.) That is their gross receipts for the day.
Next they divide the gross receipts by the number of tickets. That gives you the income per-capita. (AKA: The "Per-Cap")

Next, they tally up all their expenses for the day. They count cost of goods sold. They count payroll. They count rent and utilities. Then they divide that by the number of tickets sold. That gives cost per customer. (AKA: "C.P.C.")

If Per-Cap is greater than CPC, they made money that day. If not, they have to figure out whether they can stay in business any longer.

Theaters report their earnings as the margin of their Per-Cap against their CPC.
Many theaters are working against shoestring margins. A really great margin might be $2.00 or $3.00 per customer. A lot of theaters are working on $1.00 to $1.50 per customer margins.

A megaplex theater in an urban area which collects $250,000 in gross receipts on a busy Friday night might only put $30,000 to $50,000 in the bank at the end of the business day. That's pathetic!

The reason why film gets damaged is NOT because film is inherently prone to damage. It's because theaters hire teenagers to run the projectors. They are too preoccupied with school and their social lives to have a work ethic. They slap the film into the machines and they hit the "start" button. They walk away and they go downstairs to chat up the popcorn girls. It's a freakin' miracle that there is even a movie at all!

Digital projection is not better because it doesn't get damaged. Hard drives still crash. Computers still malfunction. Lenses and xenon lamps still break and go out of spec. Sound systems still stop working. Kids running the shows still forget to focus the projectors. Light engines inside the digital projectors still fail.

To say that film is inherently less robust than film or is lower quality is a big, fat lie perpetrated by the companies who make and sell digital projectors. It's just the same as the oil companies who say that buying more expensive premium gasoline is better for your car. In a very few cases, premium gas is better but, in the great majority of cases, the only difference is the price.

A conscientious operator can run a film print through a 35mm movie projector hundreds and hundreds of times with virtually ZERO damage. I have worked in movie theaters for almost 15 years. I have run thousands of shows on 35mm film and I have handled enough movie film to go around the world, probably a dozen times or more. I have seen how film gets damaged. I know from personal experience that, 90% of the time, it is because some idiot doesn't do his job right. (Just to keep things straight, I have been "that idiot" on several occasions.) The other 10% of the time it is because of a machine malfunction. But that 10% can happen with equal probability in a digital theater as it can happen in a film theater.

The real reason movie studios are pushing digital is not because digital is better. It's because they want to get their hands on that last 15% of the profits that the theaters are keeping.

It's nothing more than greed.

Are Fuji and Kodak capable of staying in business without the massive cine film income they used to have after digital takes over most theaters? Is photography film production sustainable for those big companies by it's own if we just keep buying film (I mean are we numerous enough around the world)? Could the production be downsized and film prices kept affordable for the average analog photographer? Would they have the will for this? If not, would some smaller company around the world would and could? I think Adox picked up some production tools from the late Agfa and seem to be doing ok. I'm looking forward to the time when the Chinese will be able to produce some quality color film, maybe then some bean counters will get the idea that there may be some money to make after all.

Read the disclaimer at the end of the note:

I've got it, with the current white house thinking , the loss of Cine production will give Kodak more time to make general photographic film for us and maybe revive some older discontinued emulsions like Panatomic-X and Kodachrome. Wow and I was worried.



If the Eastman Kodak Company was really American they would keep making the best film in the World because it is good for the economy, if film stops then what about all of the companies that are based on film. Film is the keystone that keeps the whole thing from falling apart. Without film who needs HC110, D76, Rodinal, or any stop, fix, or chemical, storage, dust brush, wetting agent, and a catalog of items we take for granted? Do we keep the darkroom just to print old negatives? They, the manufactures in a depressed economy, have us by the neck.

Does the phrase "All the market can bear" ring a bell?


These are some Friday thoughts and not an argument on film, live or die, just some thoughts that will get answered in time. At least Ron is giving us some information in a rather vacuumed atmosphere.

Well, this is just one in a long series of downward steps that have been being made for decades. Film is mostly dead, and I feel that it will die relatively soon. It is just a matter of time. Not enough new people are picking it up and really learning how to work with it the way past generations did; devoting themselves to learning to do what it takes to get better results than they can get with digital. If we are lucky, we'll have something close to what we have now for a while, but sadly, I think we are very far from lucky with this one. I can see a few niche companies continuing to make b/w film and paper, but that is about all I envision. The only thing that could save it on a large scale would be a massive upsurge in the amount of patience that people have, to backtrack a good degree on the lack of patience they instantly let loose as soon as they got digital in their hot little hands. It ain't gonna happen. People are just too lazy and impatient. I just hope that those niche companies make good film that I can afford.

Being involved in the cinematography forum I've been aware for a few years about the slow conversion to Digital Projection in theaters, but I didn't want to say anything. It's not just 3D but 2D as well. It boils down to the greedy corporate conglomerates -- which own the Hollywood Studios -- wanting to make even more money by cutting out the cost of using Film Prints. However, theaters will not be able to afford the cost of maintaining Digital Projectors in the long run, and I believe they'll bring back their 35mm Projectors or go out of business.

Policar said:

... But on big movies, digital is actually more expensive to shoot and many name cinematographers prefer how film looks. But as fewer movies are shot on film, film will get more expensive, and as it gets more expensive, even fewer movies will be shot on it. ...

Click to expand...

Cinematographers will ALWAYS shoot their movies on Film! Unlike most professional photographers, they know how deficient Digital Movie Cameras are. Although modern 3D movies are shot on Digital Cameras, that will NEVER be the case for 2D.

There is also the possibility for the resurrection of 70mm movies. This would require a quality Digital Sound Track capable of being printed onto the Film. 70mm would blow away 4K Digital.

One thing that has helped Digital Projection is the completely deficient Continuous Contact Printer used for duplicating Movie Prints. I have a few ideas for improving the Contact Printer which I intend to propose to Bell & Howell when I have the time. This would improve both the image quality of 35mm Prints and the reliability of the Digital Sound Tracks on the Prints -- making 35mm more viable for theaters.

These threads are tiresome.

My friend who works for a large cinema company here says that they are unwilling to modify their cinemas with digital projection equipment due to higher per-play costs.

He says film prints are here to stay unless Kodak start handing out digital cinema projection ($100,000)

3D, though the Hot Thing now, is a passing fad.
It makes people sick (physically), and as soon as the first people start sueing the film theatres for the suffering they were subjected to, it will soon end.