A big blow to film production at Kodak and Fuji

[bobwysiwyg]

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.
-NT

I seem to recall an article that it was in fact, the timing and distribution costs associated with getting films (copies) to theaters that was a major factor in switching to digital.

 

[CGW]

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...

Why? Because he's making statements about a declining trend without any data. Go back and read PE's opening comment. If PE wants to make the argument, then share the data that show how he reached his conclusion. I'm not seeing that and probably won't. So much for science.

 

[sandholm]

Why? Because he's making statements about a declining trend without any data. Go back and read PE's opening comment. If PE wants to make the argument, then share the data that show how he reached his conclusion. I'm not seeing that and probably won't. So much for science.

Well,
He only state the file is suffering due to 3D, which is captured with digital cameras. So (as a scientist) no real data has to been shown, just intelligence.

Movie X is captured digital -> digital don´t use film -> movie companies will not buy film -> companies who produces film will not sell film -> companies will not produce film (because no one is purchasing it)

So, if you want to gather data fine, but just look how many digital 3D movies that are made, this is how the camera for avatar look:
http://g4tv.com/videos/48219/Avatars-Cameron-Pace-3D-Camera-Rig-Review/
No film here

to see the data about stereo, just read the movie page of your local newspaper, probably none of them where shoot with film.

So, here PE is right, then we can discuss how Kodak and fuji will handle it (but Ilford is doing ok, i I think they dont produce movie film...)

 

[Photo Engineer]

Why? Because he's making statements about a declining trend without any data. Go back and read PE's opening comment. If PE wants to make the argument, then share the data that show how he reached his conclusion. I'm not seeing that and probably won't. So much for science.

Did you read Bob Shanebrook's book yet? It gives some figures on ECP production.

Did you look at Kodak's own projections on ECP sales over the next few years?

Did you see how many 3D movies there are out there? And, 99% of those are all digital! It is a gimmick to move people to digital and sell 3D. The next fad is the 3D TV. They are being sold now with 2 or 3 free 3D (childrens) movies on DVD. Avatar in 3D is due out in a few weeks.

So, Kodak cranks out less ECP and a silent "layoff" takes place at Kodak Park. I don't have to have data when I drive by Kodak Park and see empty parking lots and see that wings of many buildings are totally dark. But, I'm surrounded by people who work or worked at Kodak, and we talk. Regularly. This story is one of the latest to emerge.

I really don't care if you believe me or not. I can be wrong too, and the fad can vanish as well. Or the market can reverse, or this may be due to the takeover of the home theater, or.... it may be that the bedbug plague is scaring people away from theaters!

ECP production is way down. Take my word for it. How much remains to be seen at the end of the year reports from EK. If you can read them.

PE

 

[CGW]

Well,
He only state the file is suffering due to 3D, which is captured with digital cameras. So (as a scientist) no real data has to been shown, just intelligence.

Movie X is captured digital -> digital don´t use film -> movie companies will not buy film -> companies who produces film will not sell film -> companies will not produce film (because no one is purchasing it)

So, if you want to gather data fine, but just look how many digital 3D movies that are made, this is how the camera for avatar look:
http://g4tv.com/videos/48219/Avatars-Cameron-Pace-3D-Camera-Rig-Review/
No film here

to see the data about stereo, just read the movie page of your local newspaper, probably none of them where shoot with film.

So, here PE is right, then we can discuss how Kodak and fuji will handle it (but Ilford is doing ok, i I think they dont produce movie film...)

So far the only suffering due to 3D seems to be connected with schlock like "Piranha-3D." Epic!

 

[lxdude]

Why? Because he's making statements about a declining trend without any data. Go back and read PE's opening comment. If PE wants to make the argument, then share the data that show how he reached his conclusion. I'm not seeing that and probably won't. So much for science.

There's no requirement here that people furnish data to back up every statement they make when they make it. Are you going to set the rule now that if someone claims something they have to attribute it up front? If you doubt it, fine, look into it. If you can, prove him wrong. Even call bullshit on it. But if you do, you should have something to back yourself up.

If PE says it, it's very likely to be so. He has decades of experience in the film business working for Kodak. He contributes a lot of knowledge here, knowledge combined with those decades of experience. He also lives near Kodak and knows people who still work for Kodak. It's possible that some of the information he has he can't divulge directly.

At any rate, he's been around the business a long time and has contributed greatly to the level of discussion here. Without his input or that of someone like him, a lot of discussions would just be a bunch of somewhat informed, ill-informed or uninformed people spouting speculation and a fair amount of nonsense, without an adult in the room who really knows something. He is not an alarmist or a spreader of rumors.

I accept his opinion as the truth as he sees it, and his perspective is generally better than mine. I consider his opinions to be informed opinions. If I were to doubt the veracity of something he said I would question it, but that's different from criticizing him because he didn't provide backing data up front. I'm sure if he had to start doing that every time he stated something, his posts would be mostly footnotes.

I did as you suggested and went back and looked at PE's original post. I saw nothing in there that requires attribution. Why? Because it's obvious that if theaters replace film projectors with digital projectors they will no longer be projecting film. And much of Kodak's cine film production is print film-the stuff that actually gets projected.

And contrary to your assertion, he didn't "make the argument". He made a statement. You made an argument in opposition to that statement. You said it was a bit Chicken Little-ish, and followed that with several (possibly rhetorical) questions. But I haven't seen one shred of hard evidence from you to back up your argument.


Note: PE, I know you can defend yourself quite handily. This one just torqued me a little bit.

 

[M.A.Longmore]

There's no requirement here that people furnish data to back up every statement they make when they make it. Are you going to set the rule now that if someone claims something they have to attribute it up front? If you doubt it, fine, look into it. If you can, prove him wrong. Even call bullshit on it. But if you do, you should have something to back yourself up.


Note: PE, I know you can defend yourself quite handily. This one just torqued me a little bit.

.
Thank You LXDude !


Ron
.

 

[CGW]

There's no requirement here that people furnish data to back up every statement they make when they make it. Are you going to set the rule now that if someone claims something they have to attribute it up front? If you doubt it, fine, look into it. If you can, prove him wrong. Even call bullshit on it. But if you do, you should have something to back yourself up.

If PE says it, it's very likely to be so. He has decades of experience in the film business working for Kodak. He contributes a lot of knowledge here, knowledge combined with those decades of experience. He also lives near Kodak and knows people who still work for Kodak. It's possible that some of the information he has he can't divulge directly.

At any rate, he's been around the business a long time and has contributed greatly to the level of discussion here. Without his input or that of someone like him, a lot of discussions would just be a bunch of somewhat informed, ill-informed or uninformed people spouting speculation and a fair amount of nonsense, without an adult in the room who really knows something. He is not an alarmist or a spreader of rumors.

I accept his opinion as the truth as he sees it, and his perspective is generally better than mine. I consider his opinions to be informed opinions. If I were to doubt the veracity of something he said I would question it, but that's different from criticizing him because he didn't provide backing data up front. I'm sure if he had to start doing that every time he stated something, his posts would be mostly footnotes.

I did as you suggested and went back and looked at PE's original post. I saw nothing in there that requires attribution. Why? Because it's obvious that if theaters replace film projectors with digital projectors they will no longer be projecting film. And much of Kodak's cine film production is print film-the stuff that actually gets projected.

And contrary to your assertion, he didn't "make the argument". He made a statement. You made an argument in opposition to that statement. You said it was a bit Chicken Little-ish, and followed that with several (possibly rhetorical) questions. But I haven't seen one shred of hard evidence from you to back up your argument.


Note: PE, I know you can defend yourself quite handily. This one just torqued me a little bit.

Seems to be considerable confusion here regarding evidence, data, and verifiable sources that PE can't/won't share. If you or anyone else doesn't see an evidentiary problem, then fine by me.

 

[Photo Engineer]

CGW;

I think that you can see that if I divulge exact figures and names, I will not only lose sources, but sources might have problems with EK. Even I have been admonished by EK on one occasion regarding a post, but generally they are somewhat in favor of my work as far as I can tell.

My posts are not always 100% accurate, but I try the best I can to be as accurate as possible. I hope that my past history speaks for itself. And, as for my ability to gain contact with EK information, I assure you that I have reached the highest levels. I questioned Tony Perez personally about B&W paper cancellation back when it took place, and right now, I would talk to him a bit about canceling sheet color Endura among other things!

But, facts are facts and are common knowledge here. If you take the references I gave you to heart and read them instead of arguing about my post, you would have a lot better understanding of the situation. It seems to me you would rather keep questioning me than look at some of that reference material.

Why?

PE

 

[MaximusM3]

Well said and 100% correct lxdude. I, for one, trust and take what Ron has to say as informed truth and I certainly appeciate his knowledge and contribution the the forum.

 

[M.A.Longmore]

CGW;

I think that you can see that if I divulge exact figures and names, I will not only lose sources, but sources might have problems with EK ...

My posts are not always 100% accurate, but I try the best I can to be as accurate as possible. I hope that my past history speaks for itself ...

It seems to me you would rather keep questioning me than look at some of that reference material ...

Why?

PE

.
It's probably so much easier to do nothing.
Than to actually make an effort to do something ...


Ron,
The Other Ron ...
.

 

[Photo Engineer]

.
It's probably so much easier to do nothing.
Than to actually make an effort to do something ...


Ron,
The Other Ron ...
.

I debate this constantly with myself!

Sometimes I wonder what I am doing here on APUG.

PE

 

[M.A.Longmore]

.
You are here to offer help and advice to APUGii Vulgaris.


Ron
.

 

[Photo Engineer]

.
You are here to offer help and advice to APUGii Vulgaris.


Ron
.

The guy who asked for a Martinus in Rome was asked in return "don't you mean Martini?". He replied, "If I want more than one, I'll ask for them."

I think APUG Vulgaris is enough for me! APUGii is more than I need.

PE

 

[M.A.Longmore]

.
PE, You Can Be Compared To Kodachrome.
And don't it always seem to go, That we don't know what we've got till it's gone ...

I'm Just Saying ...


Ron
.

 

[fotch]

I debate this constantly with myself!

Sometimes I wonder what I am doing here on APUG.

PE

Feeding the Trolls

 

[Worker 11811]

Policar,

Most multiplexes run film from platters which can play as much as 4 hours of film in one continuous loop. Properly maintained and operated, film can be make hundreds and hundreds of passes through a platter/projector system with virtually no damage but for minimal wear and tear at the edges. (The non-projected part of the film.)

After seeing how poorly most people treat film and after occasionally treating film poorly, myself, I steadfastly insist that more than 90% of what people attribute to "natural" degradation of film is really human error. I do not believe that the other 10% can be made up for with digital projection alone. Hard drive failures, other random system failures and general inattention to detail by theater employees will still exist, regardless of the medium used.

I believe that, in many cases, the superior visual quality of film presented by a competent, caring operator can surpass anything digital can produce. Therefore, the cost of scrapping your already paid for film equipment and going into debt by buying even more expensive digital equipment makes the conversion a false economy.

I like digital media. I think it is useful in many cases. Satellite broadcasts of the Metropolitan Opera would not be possible without it. But, I think the wholesale switchover from film to digital is not a good thing. Movie theaters are in enough trouble as it is. I don't think digital projection will save them if they don't mind the reason why they are in business to begin with.

I think the extinction of movie theaters, digital or film-based, is more of a threat to the demand/production of film than a switchover to digital projection.

 

[Ross Chambers]

Ah Randy,

If only your skill and care could be applied by all projectionists (whoops, sorry candy bar button pressers who now "run the show")

As one who worked most of my life in motion picture production I was delighted to see a spotlessly clean, unscratched, in rack (or frame) image when I saw my first digitally projected theatrical film.

It fell to me on one occasion to double check the Sydney premiere print of Oscar winning "The Piano". Some way into the print the leading lady zipped across the screen several feet. The projectionist explained to me that he had damaged the print, but it was OK because he had removed that section and spliced it neatly. It wasn't fun ransacking Sydney for a replacement print at short notice.

I spent many long hours at one time checking used release prints of one of our productions that were intended for secondary rural cinemas. All had varying degrees of damage from previous runs.

Randy explains the fairly universal platter system, this makes flexibility of programming hard, it takes several hours to make up and break down a show, not very handy for a repertory style cinema.

However all of this is much less important that the whole chain of production/post production which presently finds material being transferred back and forth between digital and analogue media: film master transferred to digital for picture and sound editing, digital final cut matched back to film master negative, digital CGI (which becomes more and more used in every genre of film, not just the obvious SFX ones) converted to film (losing quality in the process) so as to be integrated into the matched film master neg. There are feature films being shot digitally BTW. It is apparent to me that the technical trend must be to a wholly integrated digital production, post and distribution regime.

I must agree very much with Randy's other point:

<<But, I think the wholesale switchover from film to digital is not a good thing. Movie theaters are in enough trouble as it is. I don't think digital projection will save them if they don't mind the reason why they are in business to begin with.

I think the extinction of movie theaters, digital or film-based, is more of a threat to the demand/production of film than a switchover to digital projection.>>

Regards - Ross

 

[TerryM]

... it may be that the bedbug plague is scaring people away from theaters! ...

This just happened last week at a Theater in Toronto scheduled to be used for the upcoming Toronto International Film Festival. Everyone is in a panic over bed bugs! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

... Of course it's greed that motivates the studios, but profit margins are so poor in the entertainment industry and the cost of product so high that "greed" and "staying in business" can be interchangeable. Just look at MGM. ...

Hollywood makes a good $14 Billion Dollars or more per year. Those are not poor profit margins. The current MGM was created in 1986 by Kirk Kerkorian after he sold the original to Ted Turner, and then capriciously wanted to buy it back. Turner only sold him back the name and studio lot, and then renamed it the Turner Entertainment Company -- which was merged with Time-Warner in 1999. Warner Bros. now owns the MGM / UA / Selznick / RKO Movie Libraries, and the current MGM only owns post-1986 Movies. That's why the current MGM is not rich.

 

[Chris Nielsen]

Interesting thread, thanks all. Speaking of damaged prints, I went to a classic movie screening last night at my local theatre - they were playing Top Gun, and it was quite amazing how poor the print was. For substantial parts of the movie, it was literally *covered* in scratches running horizontally and vertically. Or a series of marks in the centre that eventually faded. Would this have been a 24 year old print perhaps? Looked like it had spent the last 24 years being dragged across the projection room floor

 

[Worker 11811]

A film platter is a monstrous looking thing: http://www.flickr.com/photos/37769587@N06/3827414396/

On this photo, the movie pays out from the middle deck and rewinds on the lower deck. The upper deck is for backup or, as in the picture, holding a second movie.

Look at the bottom (rewind) deck. See how the blue film (actually the leader) crosses the platter as it rewinds on the center spool?
If the operator misthreads the film and it drags across that metal platter on its way to be rewound, it will get crosswise or diagonal scratches in it. It looks like a cat clawed the screen with hundreds of little, black scratches.

Vertical scratches usually occur as the film drags across a stationary object, lengthwise. Most often this occurs when the operator misses a roller, causing the film to rub the projector frame as it enters, on its way to being projected.

The biggest problems occur because a lot of scratching and damage occur AFTER the film has been projected and is on its way back to the rewind spool. Any damage that occurs then will not be seen until the next time the film is projected.

The number one way to prevent all of this is to have the operators walking the projection room, visiting each projector at least once every 10-20 minutes. Instead, what they do is haphazardly thread, press the start button then go downstairs and chat up the chicks at the popcorn counter.

BTW... Policar;

When I am on my game, I can build a 6-reel (2 hour) movie onto a platter and have it ready to play in approx. 90 minutes. 45 minutes after the movie is over, it can be back in the can. Myself and one other competent person can reshuffle all the prints from theater to theater in a 20-plex theater in an hour or less.

I am not exceptional. It just takes somebody willing to do the work. The problem is that fewer people, these days, are willing to do it.

 

[Worker 11811]

Anybody who says they've never put a scratch or a fingerprint on a piece of film is a damn liar. What separates the men from the boys is that some people actually try to do the job right in the first place, fess up when they make mistakes and try to do better next time.

My wife just cringes at the thought of going to watch a movie with me. If the movie is the least bit out of focus or racked a bit out of frame I'll be running out to the lobby to give the nearest manager an earful. On one occasion, I went up to the booth... at a theater I didn't even work for... to fix the framing. My wife just sank down in her seat and pretended she didn't know me.

Sad thing is, the booth was completely deserted. Nobody even knew I was there.

When I was a field technician, the first thing I did when visiting a newly assigned theater was to show up, unannounced, and buy a ticket to watch a movie and make a list of all the things that were wrong. (I expensed the price of the ticket and the popcorn.) After the movie I'd show up at the manager's office and introduce myself and present my laundry list.

There were a couple of theater managers in my area who didn't like me very much... Ask me if I cared.

I would love to see a genuine nitrate print projected by carbon arc! They say there is nothing that can compare!

 

[TerryM]

I salute and commend your great work ethic Randy! There aren't many people around today who care about providing quality. Theatres aren't willing to pay enough money to hire qualified projectionists, and don't care about their customers.

... Speaking of damaged prints, I went to a classic movie screening last night at my local theatre - they were playing Top Gun, and it was quite amazing how poor the print was. For substantial parts of the movie, it was literally *covered* in scratches running horizontally and vertically. Or a series of marks in the centre that eventually faded. Would this have been a 24 year old print perhaps?...

If that 'Top Gun' print was 35mm, then it likely was 24 years old. Those "scratches" could easily be dust. I've experienced this with my Super8. I then covered the outside of the Film Gate in my Super8 Projector with plastic Saran Wrap to prevent dusty air from being drawn in by the cooling fan. This is a big cause of dust on the film. You would think they would be smart enough to design a Projector so that air doesn't go through the Film Gate!

... Also, my local projectionists aren't always so great... I had to watch No Country for Old Men completely out of focus. ...

I was once told by someone at a Hollywood Studio that blurring could be caused by a too-old xenon light past its usable life. Your local theatre probably doesn't have a "projectionist" -- just ushers filling in as projectionists. :munch:

 

[Chris Nielsen]

You know, even with the dust / scratches and 1980's sound, it was still an absolute blast to be able to watch Top Gun on the big screen for the first time! I love that movie, and it was quite impressive how many small details you saw that on DVD on a 29" TV I just don't see. Just the best aerial photography of jets of all time. Fantastic!

 

[Stephen Frizza]

I have watched the same film on both a film projector and a digital projector and I know i will sound like im being a stick in the mud not wanting to budge from analog. but I didn't find the digital projection quality as good as the quality of the film projection. is this the general deal or was it perhaps just my situation? or is it all in my mind? I am sure the general public dont care and dont look for the finer details. They just want a story and to escape the drudgery of everyday life. But digital projection didn't seem on par with the qualities the film had.