Eastman Kodak: Strong increasing demand for movie film

[Henning Serger]

Henning,

I am curious; can you confirm that the increase in motion picture sales is for color negative and not color print film?

Sorry, I have currently no data about the detailed relation / percentages of colour negative camera film to colour negative print film (for the copies shown in cinemas).
But my assessment is that it is probably currently mainly the camera film which sees the strong increases demand.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Tom Kershaw]

. I'm not a member. I'm a skinflint "borrow a classic movie on a disc for free at the library, and watch it at home" type.

Unfortunately the libraries over here charge for disc rental. However I use a subscription service which works via the post for DVDs and Blu-Ray discs. I saw the Criterion edition of 'The Heiress' last night from 1949 which I'd highly recommend.

 

[faberryman]

I've not had a chance to listen yet but the BBC put this programme out this morning: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000d70k#play - 'The Last Exposure' - the blurb for which contains the lines:

'We hear his story of printing - a physical, technical skill, as well as a dangerous and smelly one. We envisage the end of the analogue era of photography, and celebrate the alchemical eclipse.' - This almost seems like 'fake news' compared to what we hear from Henning and other sources, eg. De Vere selling well into the market, including new machines...

What is dangerous about printing? Nothing I know of. And it is not particularly smelly either.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'm not going to waste any of my time on yet another junk "filler" article or web flick about the alleged demise of chemical photography. A process like Technicolor used some toxic tanning chemicals, so would be hard to restart these days even if economically feasible, if we're talking about movies. But there is nothing "green" about the electronics revolution if one factors in some of the truly dangerous chem that goes into the manufacturing, as well as what kind of nasties are present in the mountains of devices awaiting recycling, plus all the demographic suffering and environmental carnage over the raw materials. It's one of the worst industries ever in that respect.

 

[BobD]

I like it when I hear "they don't make film anymore" because that means one more person who will sell their old film cameras cheap.

 

[abruzzi]

if you go through this list of Oscar contenders for 2020, you will see that shooting on film is still happening, in spite of all the digital comeras out there : https://www.indiewire.com/2019/11/cameras-lens-2020-oscar-contenders-best-cinematography-1202187839/

It's interesting to go though that article. I had never heard of "Large Format Digital Cinema". I know this is mostly a film discussion, but what exactly is that? 70mm frame sizes?

 

[Cholentpot]

Seems that some studios have figured out that film is future proof and you can keep going back to the watering hole to re-release at higher and higher resolution.

 

[cmacd123]

It's interesting to go though that article. I had never heard of "Large Format Digital Cinema". I know this is mostly a film discussion, but what exactly is that? 70mm frame sizes?

well this one https://dxl.panavision.com/ claims
Sensor Size
Large Format: 40.96mm x 21.60mm (Diagonal: 46.31mm)
so what we think of as "large" and what the MP industry thinks of as Large may not have much correlation.

 

[Agulliver]

I like it when I hear "they don't make film anymore" because that means one more person who will sell their old film cameras cheap.

I don't. More people thinking film isn't available is lots less film being sold and a camera or two not being used, possibly being tossed into the rubbish.

If we are to think of the longer term future of our hobby, we need people who might shoot film but who aren't aware that it's still reasonably practical to do so. I have come across many people who point at a vintage film camera in my hands when out and about "That's not loaded, is it? You can't get the film for those.". Even people who shot film themselves until quite recently. A surefire way to lose film is for the majority of the population to think it's already gone.

Back on topic, the fact that Kodak is seeing significant increase in sales of motion picture film and building new processing facilities is highly encouraging. I know of cinemas in London which make a big thing of screening classic films on 35mm and 65mm IMAX rather than digital. They advertise such events, sometimes they go on for weeks with two or three screenings every week. But even if most of this MP film goes to acquisition with the final result being projected digitally, it is still good news.

 

[BobD]

More people thinking film isn't available is lots less film being sold

How did you arrive at that? Film sales are on the rise despite some "people thinking film isn't available."

There have always been and there will always be people with wrong ideas.

 

[StepheKoontz]

Yes, most "journalists" have transformed themselves into Tribalistic cheerleaders

What I have seen is they are now mostly purveyors of sensationalized click bait.

 

[pentaxuser]

What I have seen is they are now mostly purveyors of sensationalized click bait.

That may well be the case but as a listener to BBC Radio 4 on which the programme was broadcast my impression is that of all the radio stations and this includes other BBC stations, Radio 4 still embodies the principles laid down by Lord Reith, the father of the BBC which was to inform, educate and entertain in that order.

pentaxuser

 

[Agulliver]

How did you arrive at that? Film sales are on the rise despite some "people thinking film isn't available."

There have always been and there will always be people with wrong ideas.

And they'd be even higher if everyone who has an interested in buying film knew that film and the associated products/services are still available.

 

[BobD]

And they'd be even higher if everyone who has an interested in buying film knew that film and the associated products/services are still available.

I doubt that the people who say film is no longer available have any interest in buying it. If they did have any interest, it is too easy these days to find out that it is available.

 

[JWMster]

Film is archival. I heard a podcast where they told that Fuji's has a machine for running prints and archiving with one film for each color (three passes) and this is better preservation than digital. In fact, in an odd twist, this is how digital is being preserved because the continual changes in format have meant that old digital format is inaccessible.

My local "art" theater had to convert years ago. They told me the move to digital projection had two spurs: 1) Distribution companies wanting to clamp down on unpaid showings and 2) disrupt unauthorized copying. Tighter control. He used to show old movies, and this basically killed that, too, because many of those are still film and therefore not a source of cheap runs 'cause now all you can show is digital product. This clamps down on showing because he's now in competition with the bigger theater companies for the same films, and because they fill more seats with their advertising, they get first dibs. But the other narrative in his case is that there was a shortage of qualified projectionists.... and the guys they could get weren't worth the trouble.

 

[Agulliver]

I doubt that the people who say film is no longer available have any interest in buying it. If they did have any interest, it is too easy these days to find out that it is available.

That is my whole point. I regularly see people who observe me out and about, and who are surprised that I can still get film for anything from a 20s box camera to a 90s 35mm SLR. When in my home town I explain that the camera shop on the edge of the town centre sells everything they could possibly want, and Boots in the mall still sell 120 and 135 film. Elsewhere I just point out that film for almost any camera is still available online and they're quite gobsmacked...."I'll get my old CaNikon out of the drawer, then, I had no idea it was still available" is quite a common response. My local camera shop reports a lot of people doing just that, getting old cameras out of the loft/cupboard...dusting them off...buying a film or three and getting back to shooting.

My mum's new "boyfriend" (he's 80 years old, she's 75) was quite amazed that I'd actually been shooting film in a box camera in 2018 and gave me four film cameras that his brother had been thinking of simply throwing out. I personally know three people who hadn't shot film in 15 years and hanging out with me has got them back into it. I've been quite a bad influence....one has gone and bought no fewer than 4 film cameras and been given another....another has bought 6 film cameras, the equipment to develop her own B&W film at home and has decided that one shelf of the family fridge is now the "film shelf". None of these people would even be shooting any film if they hadn't *talked* about how it's still relatively easy to buy.

Sometimes interest has to be sparked. If one thinks a product has gone, the interest wanes. My dad gave up on his plate camera because he thought quarter plates became unavailable in the 1960s...yet they remain available to this very day (Thank you mr. Lane - and other options exist) but he just hadn't seen them in camera shops and inquiries at said shops lead to him being told "nah, use film instead". Had he known, he'd have been buying glass plates or sheet film in the 80s and 90s. As it is, I am now doing just that because I found out they are available (again thanks Mr. Lane!)

 

[DREW WILEY]

Unauthorized copying? That would seem vastly easier to do with what is digitized to begin with. Tighter control - just like I said, a synonym for obtaining a monopoly. But film archival? It's all relative. Making tricolor separations onto black and white film is one way to do it, but who the heck is ever going to recombine them? You might as well reinvent Technicolor and tricolor projection devices. But it is interesting that this kind of duplication is being done to some extent for archiving purposes.

 

[NB23]

What is dangerous about printing? Nothing I know of. And it is not particularly smelly either.

I once took a sip of Dektol, had a splash of selenium in my eyes, dip my hands into chemicals regularly, breathe D76 particles... and my sex life is still top notch.

Please correlate away!

 

[pentaxuser]

I once took a sip of Dektol, had a splash of selenium in my eyes, dip my hands into chemicals regularly, breathe D76 particles... and my sex life is still top notch.

Please correlate away!

Can we take it that those four things are the prerequisite to you end result? Unfortunately Dektol is less easily come by in the U.K. For all of the rest Ilford has the equivalent

pentaxuser

 

[Ko.Fe.]

And what Kodak did? I went to check ecn2 prices, they used to be cheap alternative for bw film. And prices are up behind the reasonable level to me.
But Tarakantino should still able to make his blood pools on it.

 

[Cholentpot]

Unauthorized copying? That would seem vastly easier to do with what is digitized to begin with. Tighter control - just like I said, a synonym for obtaining a monopoly. But film archival? It's all relative. Making tricolor separations onto black and white film is one way to do it, but who the heck is ever going to recombine them? You might as well reinvent Technicolor and tricolor projection devices. But it is interesting that this kind of duplication is being done to some extent for archiving purposes.

Film is archival because all it takes for you to see what is on it is some light.

Try accessing the digital information you have from 15 years ago. Now try something from 25 years ago. It just gets more difficult. However, I can look at a slide from 70 years ago, or make a print from a 125 year old negative. I can't read a hard drive from 1983 without specialized equipment.

 

[cmacd123]

Unauthorized copying? That would seem vastly easier to do with what is digitized to begin with. Tighter control

Movies sent to theaters are sent as encrypted hard disks. (or encrypted downloads over Satellite) the projection system has a crypto key stored in Volatile memory with tamper protection. without breaking the cryptography, the Movie cannot be viewed - the package has crypto sub keys for the showings that are booked. it will not play on other then those dates. And it is only decrypted inside the actual Projector, so the "clean" version is not accessible to the theater.

 

[JWMster]

Yep, Drew, the theater's digital projector is locked up tight. The distirbuition company can revoke it and pull back the theater's "copy" any time. With the old system, I remember seeing the film cans lying on the floor next to the projection room with locks on them. Not exactly secure.
Digital archives have been a failure because there is no agreed upon archival system. Film just is. You make a pass for red, for green and for blue and you have the spectrum. This is what is considered archival for the motion picture industry,

FWIW in terms of digital, watching TCM's B&W movies on my new Sony TV is amazing. The B&W looks absolutely stunningly beautiful - again. I'm seeing these flicks like they haven't been seen in 50+ years. Black blacks and white white. Gorgeous. Often what we see as "meh" in the old medium has nothing to do with the original, but in the surviving copy and the way it is shown. Often a video of a copy of the film.... many generations removed. But what I think we're seeing now is evidence that the great old stuff is really getting a new lease on life. Hope so.

 

[cmacd123]

I remember seeing the film cans lying on the floor next to the projection room with locks on them. Not exactly secure.
.

Oh yes, and EACH theatre package often has a "watermark" an image defect that is different on every hard disk recorded. so if you did manage to get a digital copy, (or even the old Camcord from the seats trick) the distributor can tell which theater was the source of the leak. Needless to say you don't get to keep your business if that happens, you will not get any digital prints to show.

having reels around, the movie is shipped in nice 2000 ft (22 minute) chunks. so someone with evil intent could slip the last reel out to a vehicle and scan it while the first couple of reels are playing. then sneak it back and take reel one for scanning. probably have a scan within the run time of the film. Again - probably a watermark these days. so don't try this at home.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Quite interesting. But to be honest, what I miss is the sheer professionalism of old school cinematographers that once came with the territory. Now that all kinds of things can be digitally substituted or altered, it has become an excuse just to present a lot of whizz bang noise and effects; but it's apparently that kind of blockbusters thrill-today / forgotten tomorrow effects which attract the teenager audiences and all ther popcorn expenditure. But it's also why I ignore most theaters these days.