Batman movie uses IMAX scenes, has the movie world buzzing..

[Kino]

Kodak Color Motion Picture stocks process in ECP and ECN chemistry, not C-41.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

Kodak Color Motion Picture stocks process in ECP and ECN chemistry, not C-41.

Absolutely true, but there are a ton of commonalities between these and C-41 in the engineering and technology. One exists because of the other.....however that being said, I don't see C-41 being in danger with every single Wal-Mart having a C-41 type film processing machine still running, and most stores still selling disposable C-41 loaded cameras..worldwide.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Absolutely true, but there are a ton of commonalities between these and C-41 in the engineering and technology. One exists because of the other.....however that being said, I don't see C-41 being in danger with every single Wal-Mart having a C-41 type film processing machine still running, and most stores still selling disposable C-41 loaded cameras..worldwide.

I'm sorry to have to ask this, but you know the above about the products just how?

How many formulas have you seen, how many coatings have you made? How many couplers and emulsions have you examined? How many print film/original combinations have you made.

They are quite different processes and coating formulas just as a Jaguar and a Chevrolet sedan are different.

C-41 exists at the tolerance of motion picture! If MP goes, then C-41 suffers greatly and R&D is trickle down from MP to C-41 products. Right now, there is no driving force whatsoever for E6 products and therefore the technology has not crossed over.

Basically, the Vision film family is the most advanced and technically complex film Kodak makes and it outperforms the comparable Fuji product by a wide margin. The same goes for the print films.

I have had the opportunity to compare all 5 formulas involved, IE, ECN, ECP, Kodacolor, Print film and color paper to comprise the two trains or systems. They each represent quite different products and lines that are optimized for different purposes.

The current comonality is that the starting material is a masked color negative using 2 electron sensitization. Even this was not true 2 years ago or thereabouts. From that point on, the differences proliferate.

PE

 

[JBrunner]

I don't think you quite realize how wrong your scenario is. B&W is not even a self-sufficient source of revenue at Kodak right now. C-41 is just barely sustainable. E-6? No.

ECN-2, and even more important ECP-2 print stock you see at the theatre sold *9 billion feet* at Kodak a couple years ago, something like that this year too. I think 6 billion feet of that were print stock. If movies, and especially theatrical projection go digital, C-41 at Kodak is dead, and that is the sad truth of the matter. They'll *maybe* keep Portra around and kill everything else.

I love it when people pump up digital projection that are film fans, not realizing the contradiction. . .

I'm really not sure what I'm supposed to be "wrong" about. C-41 film has little to do with the production of cine film. Thats been my only point. I'm certainly not in love with digital projection, or any other digital process.

Digital post and release are advancing rapidly. Its the actual shooting of movies where film remains firmly entrenched. That's a good thing.

The fact that you don't realize that cine film, both positive and negative, and the film you use in your still camera are completely different things simply illustrates my point.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

I'm sorry to have to ask this, but you know the above about the products just how?

They are quite different processes and coating formulas just as a Jaguar and a Chevrolet sedan are different.

C-41 exists at the tolerance of motion picture! If MP goes, then C-41 suffers greatly and R&D is trickle down from MP to C-41 products. Right now, there is no driving force whatsoever for E6 products and therefore the technology has not crossed over.

Basically, the Vision film family is the most advanced and technically complex film Kodak makes and it outperforms the comparable Fuji product by a wide margin. The same goes for the print films.

I have had the opportunity to compare all 5 formulas involved, IE, ECN, ECP, Kodacolor, Print film and color paper to comprise the two trains or systems. They each represent quite different products and lines that are optimized for different purposes.

The current comonality is that the starting material is a masked color negative using 2 electron sensitization. Even this was not true 2 years ago or thereabouts. From that point on, the differences proliferate.

PE

Well, PE, you are the only one that publicly posts that has the inside engineering experience to really know. I didn't mean to imply that they were the same products..rather the success of MP film helps keep alive the still films, and the still films benefit from trickle down of technology first implemented on MP films. We wouldn't have 2-electron sensitization on still films if it weren't for its use and benefit for MP film, and the profits to be made by making it so for MP. If Kodak did not make MP films, at the best, (in my opinion) they would not make many changes in the remaining still films. Witness Ilford.

 

[markbb]

As far as I am aware, pretty much all commercial cinemas in the UK project from a 35mm film print. And the same is true for most of the world. The fact is that, at present, this is the way movies are distributed, and to change this would require all commercial cinemas to invest in new projection systems, and digital projection systems capable of comparable results are considerably more expensive than their 35mm counterparts. Of course, there is no way the cinemas want to shell this out as at present they don't pay for the film prints.....hence the main reason (other than quality) we still have mechanical projection.

try: http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=146905

 

[Matt5791]

try: http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=146905

That's all about a handful of screens (200 odd) being capable of projecting digitally but has nothing to do with mainstream film distribution - it is to enable low budget films a wider audience as in the past they could only afford 1 or 2 release prints (usual cost around £2000 each) so distribution was very limited to one or two cinemas.

As an example, Odeon alone has around 1100 screens in the UK - then you have all the other chains with similar numbers. I estimate there are probably in the region of 15,000 commercial cinema screens in the UK, and the only way these will ever project digitally is if someone pays for the conversion - the cinemas wont and because they are quite happy being supplied the prints, paid for by the studios.

Personally I would argue that it is a good thing it is expensive to release a film, because this way all the rubbish is weeded out. one of the reasons a lot of art-house stuff is called "art-house" is because this is (not all of the time) a euphemism for "poor". If it was good, a studio would snap it up and do the distribution - prime example: El Mariachi by Robert Rodriguez, which he made for $6000 but got distributed by Columbia Pictures - because it is a great film.

Matt

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, here is some additional information.

1. B&W film is barely sustainable. Motion Picture film drives Kodaks coating establishment and without it, the operation would wither. If theaters went digital, motion picture film and all of the rest would vanish. BTW, Kodak is a big player in digital MP. The Big Red One is driven by Kodak technology and they use the local theaters to test Kodak digital systems.

2. All technology does trickle down from MP to other products but this does not mean that they are the same or even similar. The MP films were out there for several years before they could solve keeping problems in the Portra family, and after that they had problems solving little glitches in the B&W products.

3. E6 and Kodachrome are just about dead.

PE

 

[Kino]

Personally I would argue that it is a good thing it is expensive to release a film, because this way all the rubbish is weeded out. one of the reasons a lot of art-house stuff is called "art-house" is because this is (not all of the time) a euphemism for "poor". If it was good, a studio would snap it up and do the distribution - prime example: El Mariachi by Robert Rodriguez, which he made for $6000 but got distributed by Columbia Pictures - because it is a great film.
Matt

There's just so many problems with that statement, I don't know where to start... and won't.

I'll just say, if you consider current mainstream cinema releases the bell weather of artistic cinema... whew...

 

[FilmIs4Ever]

There's just so many problems with that statement, I don't know where to start... and won't.

I'll just say, if you consider current mainstream cinema releases the bell weather of artistic cinema... whew...

At the same time, there is definitely some good in having more than$0 distribution cost.

Do you *really* expect that free cinema won't devolve into something the like's of YouTube?

I mean, sure $2,000 a print or $80,000 for a one-print job is a hell of a lot more than some poor Indy should have to pay, but put in 16mm projectors, 8mm projectors, don't switch everything over to digital than anyone can use.

 

[JBrunner]

At the same time, there is definitely some good in having more than$0 distribution cost.

Do you *really* expect that free cinema won't devolve into something the like's of YouTube?

I mean, sure $2,000 a print or $80,000 for a one-print job is a hell of a lot more than some poor Indy should have to pay, but put in 16mm projectors, 8mm projectors, don't switch everything over to digital than anyone can use.

Digital distribution has and will have big costs associated with it. The idea that digital is some kind of "free" medium is bush league. It boils down to bums in seats, and the movies deliver that, and keep doing that.

These are not stupid people, they are incredibly pragmatic (unlike the still or DV crowd)- why do you think they are still shooting film? Because it is currently the most practical and cost effective way to make a quality movie.

 

[Matt5791]

There's just so many problems with that statement, I don't know where to start... and won't.

I'll just say, if you consider current mainstream cinema releases the bell weather of artistic cinema... whew...

I consider mainstream cinema releases to be stuff that the general population will pay to see - nothing to do with artistic merit.

We are talking about the way the economics work here, and this is behind the reason virtually all mainstream cinemas project on film.

 

[Kino]

You're putting those arguments in my mouth; I never said them.

I had these arguments 20 years ago with other formats, I don't desire to have them yet again with another distribution medium.

Cheers.

 

[Kino]

At the same time, there is definitely some good in having more than$0 distribution cost.

Do you *really* expect that free cinema won't devolve into something the like's of YouTube?

I mean, sure $2,000 a print or $80,000 for a one-print job is a hell of a lot more than some poor Indy should have to pay, but put in 16mm projectors, 8mm projectors, don't switch everything over to digital than anyone can use.

this was the quote I was responding to above

 

[markbb]

As an example, Odeon alone has around 1100 screens in the UK - then you have all the other chains with similar numbers. I estimate there are probably in the region of 15,000 commercial cinema screens in the UK,

you are way out! there around 3,500 in the whole of the UK (Dead Link Removed). The 200 screens mentioned in my original post (clearly this is not all digital screens) would show to 25% of the cinema-going audience.

 

[Matt5791]

you are way out! there around 3,500 in the whole of the UK (Dead Link Removed). The 200 screens mentioned in my original post (clearly this is not all digital screens) would show to 25% of the cinema-going audience.

Whatever the number of screens the point I was trying to make was that this has nothing to do with mainstream film distribution. It's so some low budget makes can get some audience without having to go through the normal distribution channels. Studio produced films are only released on 35mm print.

However looking at the actual cost, I remember the late John Pytlak from Kodak, who was an expert in all things motion picture, (and had won an oscar on one occasion for some advances in telecine) used to point out on forums such as www.cinematography.com and www.filmshooting.com that infact film print distribution and projection is extremely economical - another reason why this is still the mainstram distribution medium.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

Whatever the number of screens the point I was trying to make was that this has nothing to do with mainstream film distribution. It's so some low budget makes can get some audience without having to go through the normal distribution channels. Studio produced films are only released on 35mm print.

However looking at the actual cost, I remember the late John Pytlak from Kodak, who was an expert in all things motion picture, (and had won an oscar on one occasion for some advances in telecine) used to point out on forums such as (there was a url link here which no longer exists) and (there was a url link here which no longer exists) that infact film print distribution and projection is extremely economical - another reason why this is still the mainstram distribution medium.

Well, Studio produced films have over the years been released in 16mm for rental libraries, school film programs and even some theatrical exhibition, and now, of course Studio released films are 35mm and Digital.

While you are quite right that with proper care 35mm film releases can be economical and certainly the equipment to show them is much more economical than current digital projection, the fact is that with the apathy on the part of theatre operators towards "quality" in projection, often times a 35mm print comes off being less sharp than a home HDTV, not because of the film, but the lack of knowledge and skill in setting up and running the equipment. Back in the day of 70mm road shows, it was not at all uncommon for a theatre to have one print and run it for a year, and have it still look sparkling and new on the screen. IMAX and IWERKS venues still do this, but the operators are TRAINED....and the equipment goes thru a daily cleaning and inspection.

 

[FilmIs4Ever]

this was the quote I was responding to above

I'm really surprised that someone who works with motion picture archiving and restoration every day would take the stance with digital motion picture distribution. Surely you agree that there is merit to the continuation of 35- and 70mm projection.

You can literally plug in an X-Box to a digital preview projector and play it on the movie screen. That doesn't mean that everyone can distribute a movie, even with digital, but I think it is good to have costs involved.

HD is a whole different game than VHS-C. And we still photographers had been saying "it'll never happen" for a decade and then it did happen.

The only think keeping C-41 and ECN-2 alive right now are Kodak's sales of print stock, so you can't have color film continue to be made without sales of print stock keeping production afloat.

 

[Kino]

Where did I take a stance other than to imply that studio distribution does not automatically infer the height of artistic expression in cinema?

I have seen a lot of very expensive cinema prints of films such as "Ishtar", "Heavens Gate", "Waterworld", "Hudson Hawk"... (the list goes on and on) doled out to a nonplussed public who yawned and ignored the film.

I merely said, I don't care to go through the meaningless motions of a debate on the merits of film vs digital (or name your poison here) AGAIN, as I got my belly full with the film vs video crowd back in the 80's. It's the same mentality and same type of arguments that border on techno fetish and electronic religion rather than discourse based in reality.

Of course I champion 35mm and 70mm projection; I don't think digital is even the same beast, but you can't shove your whole raft of assumptions on me because I agree or disagree on that one point.

I agree with Matt5791 on this point "I consider mainstream cinema releases to be stuff that the general population will pay to see - nothing to do with artistic merit.

We are talking about the way the economics work here, and this is behind the reason virtually all mainstream cinemas project on film."

A very cogent observation in my opinion.


Also, to get to the heart of the matter, as JBrunner pointed out, (and I am paraphrasing him here) there ain't gonna be no "cheap" digital distribution as long as the studio holds the accounting books and are immune from any real auditing like a typical fortune 500 company.

I think you will be astounded to find out just how incredibly expensive these downloads will be, not to mention overhead and infrastructure costs, and the cousin's yacht and ... on and on and on.

As for cinema release print film underpinning the entire enterprise of film at Eastman Kodak, I think that's a bit simplistic BUT I do think that when it goes away, it will make it much, much easier to ditch the entire enterprise of making film.

As for my commitment to film based projection, I just got back from a flying 48 hour road trip to the Library of Congress, NAVCC (National Audio Visual Conservation Center) in Culpeper, Virgina, where I sold and installed there a 16mm RCA PR-32A, bilateral VA track recorder for recording optical track negatives.

I think that speaks for itself.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

If your theatre is located in a market the film distributors consider "important" the media for projection is provided to you with no up-front costs except for shipping. But the distributors take 90% of the ticket price for the first few weeks. So, other than the investment in digital equipment, the "cost" of exhibition is going to be the same regardless of whether the film is distributed on digital media or film. The cost of digital exhibition is also financed by the equipment manufacturers, or sometimes just leased to the theatres.

Where individual theatres make their profit is when they get a big hit film that people want to see over and over, as the percentage of the gross demanded by the distributors goes down with every week of play time.

 

[JBrunner]

If your theatre is located in a market the film distributors consider "important" the media for projection is provided to you with no up-front costs except for shipping. But the distributors take 90% of the ticket price for the first few weeks. So, other than the investment in digital equipment, the "cost" of exhibition is going to be the same regardless of whether the film is distributed on digital media or film. The cost of digital exhibition is also financed by the equipment manufacturers, or sometimes just leased to the theatres.

Where individual theatres make their profit is when they get a big hit film that people want to see over and over, as the percentage of the gross demanded by the distributors goes down with every week of play time.

Theatre profits are mostly pinned on concessions. Take from BO is considered gravy.

 

[eddym]

Where individual theatres make their profit is when they get a big hit film that people want to see over and over, as the percentage of the gross demanded by the distributors goes down with every week of play time.

Where individual theaters make their profit is in popcorn. The movies are just a gimmick to get them into the seats.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

Where individual theaters make their profit is in popcorn. The movies are just a gimmick to get them into the seats.

I used to own and operate theatres. Whereas the concessions are for sure a profit center, much profit can be made from films if they are hits and have a long life on the screen, as the percentage the distributor gets goes down with every week of "play" at a given venue. It requires "some" profit from ticket sales as well as concession sales to be successful.

 

[Slixtiesix]

I´ve watched the movie last thursday in the Sony IMAX Centre Berlin, it was awesome!
I even had vertigo when the view was set down the building in the first scene, it was a strange feeling,
and the IMAX scenes were so crystal clear...
Now medium format is for real!