Hello APUG from FILM Ferrania

[Henning Serger]

The answer to this is easy, unfortunately the solution is not. The answer is to lower the price of E-6 films. At $15 a roll, I have been forced to cut back on how much I buy. Even Agfa is rising fast. The solution however is not so easy. Ferrania might be able to provide competition and force the prices down some. Anyway, good luck Ferrania!

Is that really the main problem?
I don’t think so. At least not in the main markets (in some smaller countries it looks a bit different, that's right).

1. The costs per shot with colour reversal film are lower compared to instant film.
But instant film has strong increasing demand!
Despite the relative high costs per shot.

2. Shooting colour reversal film is in most cases also cheaper than shooting colour negative film.
Because:
With a developed transparency film you already have finished pictures in excellent quality you can look at.
Reversal film can be
- simply held to light to be looked at
- viewed with a slide viewer enlarged
- presented on a light box with an excellent slide loupe (e.g. the loupes from Schneider-Kreuznach, Rodenstock, Emo, Leica etc.); that delivers an enlarged picture with outstanding optical quality and an almost three-dimensional look
- projected with a slide projector with excellent projection lens for the absolut best and unsurpassed quality.

But with negative film only a developed film is useless:
With negative film you need prints. And prints in really good quality do cost, which add up in the end to more than the reversal film and development. At my professional labs I pay 30-45 Cents for 10x15 or 13x18cm higher quality RA-4 prints from 35mm.
And 80 Cents to 1,5€ for prints from 120 format film.
Processing costs are almost the same here for C-41 and E6. The difference is negligible.

For (very) big enlargements slide projection delivers an unsurpassed quality.
And at extremely low costs:
A projected slide on a 2 m x 2 m screen cost me in the range of only 30 Cents to 1€ per shot depending on the film (35mm or 120) and slide mounts.
A quality print of the same size (from negative film or digital file) cost me more than two hundred Euros.

I am shooting both colour reversal film and colour negative on a regular basis. I permanently see the costs. My costs for colour reversal are lower in total.

Some of you may say you can scan only and look at it at a computer monitor.
But why using a high-quality, high-resolution medium like film (no matter whether reversal or negative film, BW or colour), and then using the viewing medium with the absolut lowest quality?
That does not make sense at all:
LCD monitors are unable to show real halftones. The colours cannot really match the real, natural colours. And the resolution is extremely low with tiny 1 - 2 MP.

Absolutely the same is valid for DSLRs: It does not make any sense to spend very big amounts of money for a 12, 24, 35 MP camera, and then only using the tiny fraction of 1 - 2 MP of it using the computer monitor for looking at the pictures.
Complete waste of money.
Only viewing the picture on a computer monitor, no prints, nothing bigger and tangible?
From both a quality and cost perspective it is completey stupid.

3. Very high value of reversal film: Best versatility.
It is indeed one of the unique strengths of reversal film that its versatility / universalism is unsurpassed.
No other photographic medium can offer so much different options of using it.
And this has been also one reason (there are of course some more) for reversal film being the dominant medium in professional photography.

Reversal film can be
- simply held to light to be looked at, you already have a finished picture in excellent quality
- viewed with a slide viewer enlarged
- presented on a light box with an excellent slide loupe (e.g. the loupes from Schneider-Kreuznach, Rodenstock, Emo, Leica etc.); that delivers an enlarged picture with outstanding optical quality and an almost three-dimensional look
- projected with a slide projector with excellent projection lens:
That delivers a breathtaking, unique and unsurpassed quality with bigger enlargements at minimal, negligible costs. The colour brillance, sharpness, fineness of grain and resolution performance of slide projection with excellent projection lenses cannot be achieved by other means (we did all these tests in our test lab)
- direct prints on paper with Ilfochrome: yes, it is still available because some professional labs have bought huge stocks from the last production run and still offer Ilfochrome prints
- direct prints on BW paper with the Harman Direct Positive Paper (fibre base)
- direct prints on BW paper with the Imago Direct Positive Paper (Melinex base, same base as Ilfochrome has, with its outstanding brillance)
- scan and print on RA-4 paper, or display film (for poster-sized slides on big light boxes, looks stunning), or inkjet paper
- you can cross process it for funky colours.

I really like and use this unique versatility of reversal film. Gives me freedom and lots of creative uses.

And not to forget concerning value:
ISO 100/21° colour reversal films like Kodak E100G, Elitechrome 100, Sensia 100, Astia 100F, Velvia 100, Velvia 100F, current AgfaPhoto CT Precisa and Provia 100F all deliver a bit finer grain and significantly better sharpness and higher resolution compared to Reala, Ektar, Portra 160, Pro 160 NS.
We’ve very intensively tested all these films in our optical test lab over the years (I’ve reported here several times about the results).

So you get lots of excellent quality, versatility and value with reversal film.
But lots of photographers, especially young beginners, don’t know it yet
(for example the Lomo marketing people completely failed here with their extreme one-sided concentration of cross-processing only).

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Photo Engineer]

Henning, you can project prints from color negative to theater size images with excellent sharpness and grain and superb color. You cannot do this with any reversal film much less a print from a reversal film. And, Ektar is essentially a redesigned motion picture negative film.

PE

 

[Henning Serger]

Back to the subject at hand, how can we now get more film photographers interested to try out transparency film?

:w00t:

Ken

Ken, as someone who is also active in educating (young) photographers I can say there are lots of ways to get photographers interested in shooting reversal film (both colour and BW).

1. Don't rape the film with scanning, show the real beauty
- on a light table with an excellent slide loupe
- in projection with an excellent projection lens / projector.

Especially those photographers who have so far only seen their pictures on the crappy computer monitors or small prints, are immediately hooked by the unique quality transparencies offer.

2. Explain them the unique qualities, strengths and characteristics the medium has.
Here e.g. is an detailed article about that written by professional photographers, photo chemists, optical experts and photography teachers:
http://www.aphog.de/wp-content/downloads/Diapositiv/Ein einzigartiges Bildmedium-das Diapositiv.pdf

This article was also published in a little bit different structured version in the PhotoKlassik magazine edition I.2014.
If I can find the time in the future, I could translate it here for you.
But as my English is really not the best:
If someone here with excellent German and English capabilities wants to help, please contact me.

3. Reversal film is excellent for photography education: It is one of the best teachers in photography.
Slides are the "what you see it what you get" principle. They are extremely "honest" to the photographer.
You really have to think before you shoot.
The composition has to be right.
The framing has to be right.
The exposure has to be right.
A slide on the light table or in projection is a finished picture.
If you do your job as photographer before you click the shutter you will get outstanding results.

Currently unfortunately film photography education is in very much places very one-sided: Only BW negative is taught.
That has to be taught of course, but not only that.
So here is a huge potential to improve and enrich photographic education in high-schools, colleges etc. by adding reversal film to the education plans.
I think here is a very big market for Film Ferrania in entering this educational market.
More than 6 million BW films worldwide are sold to the educational market each year.

4. Apug should start to help in adding a sub-forum for slide-projection, mounts, screens etc..
There is really a gap here!
We have a sub-forum for macro photography (nothing related to film only), but not a place for the field in which film has one of the biggest advantages compared to digital: projection.
Unbelievable.
In the German speaking international forum www.aphog.de there is a subforum for reversal film photography, slide projection etc.. It is a successs. Lots of discussions, excellent information, and more traffic there compared to some other sub-forums.
We urgently need an English speaking sub-forum for that topic!
I think apug is the best place for it.
So far none of the "apug competitors" like rff have such a forum. Apug should be the first!!

5. We have very good experiences with our "Open Slide" photographer projection parties (I've reported about that here
(there was a url link here which no longer exists) )
That is also a very good way to get new photographers interested.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[AgX]

You can project prints from color negative to theater size images with excellent sharpness and grain and superb color. You cannot do this with any reversal film much less a print from a reversal film.

Can you explain on this?

 

[Henning Serger]

Henning, you can project prints from color negative to theater size images with excellent sharpness and grain and superb color. You cannot do this with any reversal film much less a print from a reversal film. And, Ektar is essentially a redesigned motion picture negative film.

PE

Dear Ron,

the biggest projections in photographic history have all been made with photographic reversal film.
For example the legendary projections in amphit-theatres made by Reinhold Messner.
Or the projections of Greenpeace with Götschmann projectors onto the biggest German mountain, the Zugspitze.

And the normal professional slide projection AV shows all have screens in theater sizes.

We've also tested motion picture film, and of course Ektar. They are all designed for fine grain (but cannot quite match the best reversal films of the same speed, but the difference is not huge), but they have compromises concerning resolution (lower resolution compared to photo films).
That makes sense:
In cinema, in moving pictures our eyes have not the time and possibility to look at all the fine details, it is too fast.
With a photo it is possible "to go into a picture", to resolve all the fine details. But that is not possible with a movie film.
But fineness of grain is visible in a movie.

Here the resolution values of Ektar in comparison to some other films from our tests (object contrast of 1:4):
Ektar: 90 - 105 Lp/mm
Portra 160: 105 - 115 Lp/mm
Kodak Farbwelt 100 (German version of Gold 100): 105 - 115 Lp/mm
(Ektar has a bit finer grain compared to Portra 160, and significantly finer than Farbwelt 100).

Kodak E100G: 120 - 135 Lp/mm
Elitechrome 100: 120 - 135 lp/mm
Agfa Photo CT Precisa 100: 120 - 135 Lp/mm
Provia 100F: 120 - 135 Lp/mm
Velvia 100: 125 - 140 Lp/mm

Best regards,
Henning

 

[StoneNYC]

Dear Ron,

the biggest projections in photographic history have all been made with photographic reversal film.
For example the legendary projections in amphit-theatres made by Reinhold Messner.
Or the projections of Greenpeace with Götschmann projectors onto the biggest German mountain, the Zugspitze.

And the normal professional slide projection AV shows all have screens in theater sizes.

We've also tested motion picture film, and of course Ektar. They are all designed for fine grain (but cannot quite match the best reversal films of the same speed, but the difference is not huge), but they have compromises concerning resolution (lower resolution compared to photo films).
That makes sense:
In cinema, in moving pictures our eyes have not the time and possibility to look at all the fine details, it is too fast.
With a photo it is possible "to go into a picture", to resolve all the fine details. But that is not possible with a movie film.
But fineness of grain is visible in a movie.

Here the resolution values of Ektar in comparison to some other films from our tests (object contrast of 1:4):
Ektar: 90 - 105 Lp/mm
Portra 160: 105 - 115 Lp/mm
Kodak Farbwelt 100 (German version of Gold 100): 105 - 115 Lp/mm
(Ektar has a bit finer grain compared to Portra 160, and significantly finer than Farbwelt 100).

Kodak E100G: 120 - 135 Lp/mm
Elitechrome 100: 120 - 135 lp/mm
Agfa Photo CT Precisa 100: 120 - 135 Lp/mm
Provia 100F: 120 - 135 Lp/mm
Velvia 100: 125 - 140 Lp/mm

Best regards,
Henning

Did you miss typed something? You said that the Kodak gold 100 has the same lp/mm as Portra160, that can't be true, grain in Gold100 is way worse in any images I've shit in that film. could you explain this?

 

[AgX]

Stone, lp/mm is something different than grain.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

grain in Gold100 is way worse in any images I've shit in that film. could you explain this?

Well, there's your problem right there!

 

[georg16nik]

Well, there's your problem right there!

+1

 

[pdeeh]

 

[Roger Cole]

Did you miss typed something? You said that the Kodak gold 100 has the same lp/mm as Portra160, that can't be true, grain in Gold100 is way worse in any images I've shit in that film. could you explain this?

Is that a typo or did you mean to say images on Gold 100 were so bad you excreted them?

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Well, there's your problem right there!

 

[Nzoomed]

Dear Ron,

the biggest projections in photographic history have all been made with photographic reversal film.
For example the legendary projections in amphit-theatres made by Reinhold Messner.
Or the projections of Greenpeace with Götschmann projectors onto the biggest German mountain, the Zugspitze.

And the normal professional slide projection AV shows all have screens in theater sizes.

We've also tested motion picture film, and of course Ektar. They are all designed for fine grain (but cannot quite match the best reversal films of the same speed, but the difference is not huge), but they have compromises concerning resolution (lower resolution compared to photo films).
That makes sense:
In cinema, in moving pictures our eyes have not the time and possibility to look at all the fine details, it is too fast.
With a photo it is possible "to go into a picture", to resolve all the fine details. But that is not possible with a movie film.
But fineness of grain is visible in a movie.

Here the resolution values of Ektar in comparison to some other films from our tests (object contrast of 1:4):
Ektar: 90 - 105 Lp/mm
Portra 160: 105 - 115 Lp/mm
Kodak Farbwelt 100 (German version of Gold 100): 105 - 115 Lp/mm
(Ektar has a bit finer grain compared to Portra 160, and significantly finer than Farbwelt 100).

Kodak E100G: 120 - 135 Lp/mm
Elitechrome 100: 120 - 135 lp/mm
Agfa Photo CT Precisa 100: 120 - 135 Lp/mm
Provia 100F: 120 - 135 Lp/mm
Velvia 100: 125 - 140 Lp/mm

Best regards,
Henning

I always thought that Grain was directly related to a films resolving power?
From what ive seen, most films with alot of grain dont have much detail, but its interesting to see that reversal films have higher resolving power although i have heard that Velvia was supposed to have the highest resolving power of any film.

 

[AgX]

For highest resolution one needs small grains. But a low graininess film does not necessarily yield a high resolution.

Both parameters are not directly reciprocital, due to film being a complex system.

 

[Nzoomed]

The mask masks dye imperfections some people have perfect hearing pitch. Some people have very good colour appreciation, brides always could detect colour problems.

The tri pack film is approximate at best...

Yes negative film and negative stock like ECN and ECP is best route to projection. Latest starwars on ECN.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars:_The_Force_Awakens

But this is the thing, ive always understood that these dye imperfections were more the issue when printing, since the photographic paper was more sensitive to a particular colour band (cyan?) and would come out stronger on the print, so using the orange mask, compensated for this when printing?

Hence why scanning a maskless film without making any corrections for the orange mask should give you a perfect image.

This is one reason i dont like negative film, because you dont really have the final image captured to see with the human eye.

 

[Xmas]

Ken, as someone who is also active in educating (young) photographers I can say there are lots of ways to get photographers interested in shooting reversal film (both colour and BW).

1. Don't rape the film with scanning, show the real beauty
- on a light table with an excellent slide loupe
- in projection with an excellent projection lens / projector.

Especially those photographers who have so far only seen their pictures on the crappy computer monitors or small prints, are immediately hooked by the unique quality transparencies offer.

2. Explain them the unique qualities, strengths and characteristics the medium has.
Here e.g. is an detailed article about that written by professional photographers, photo chemists, optical experts and photography teachers:
http://www.aphog.de/wp-content/downloads/Diapositiv/Ein einzigartiges Bildmedium-das Diapositiv.pdf

This article was also published in a little bit different structured version in the PhotoKlassik magazine edition I.2014.
If I can find the time in the future, I could translate it here for you.
But as my English is really not the best:
If someone here with excellent German and English capabilities wants to help, please contact me.

3. Reversal film is excellent for photography education: It is one of the best teachers in photography.
Slides are the "what you see it what you get" principle. They are extremely "honest" to the photographer.
You really have to think before you shoot.
The composition has to be right.
The framing has to be right.
The exposure has to be right.
A slide on the light table or in projection is a finished picture.
If you do your job as photographer before you click the shutter you will get outstanding results.

Currently unfortunately film photography education is in very much places very one-sided: Only BW negative is taught.
That has to be taught of course, but not only that.
So here is a huge potential to improve and enrich photographic education in high-schools, colleges etc. by adding reversal film to the education plans.
I think here is a very big market for Film Ferrania in entering this educational market.
More than 6 million BW films worldwide are sold to the educational market each year.

4. Apug should start to help in adding a sub-forum for slide-projection, mounts, screens etc..
There is really a gap here!
We have a sub-forum for macro photography (nothing related to film only), but not a place for the field in which film has one of the biggest advantages compared to digital: projection.
Unbelievable.
In the German speaking international forum www.aphog.de there is a subforum for reversal film photography, slide projection etc.. It is a successs. Lots of discussions, excellent information, and more traffic there compared to some other sub-forums.
We urgently need an English speaking sub-forum for that topic!
I think apug is the best place for it.
So far none of the "apug competitors" like rff have such a forum. Apug should be the first!!

5. We have very good experiences with our "Open Slide" photographer projection parties (I've reported about that here
(there was a url link here which no longer exists) )
That is also a very good way to get new photographers interested.

Best regards,
Henning

People use things for convenience and familiarity.
C41 is simpler to use and cheaper eg more latitude.
Film resolution is an irrelevance if I needed quality id use a 67.
There are more c41 mini labs, I have scratch mixed E6 and C41 but C41 is easier.
I can scan either for file or proof print
My scanner has live view mode and is more convient than my cartridge projector for proof (though not as impressive an irrelevance for proof cept for a customer when I could use a digital projector)
Can't get any cibachrome used it a lot in past.
Prints from C41 have better colour. Not noticed difference in digital photoframe, my customers
only ever complained about colour.

I used to take ten Kchrome25 135 to a wedding, Id take C41 now.

Hybrid (scanner) and volume (mini labs, cibachrome) has eroded any advantage of transparency.

A political spiel won't help. There is

agfa vista200 x24 1.00 GBP in most local shops
agfa vista400 x36 3.00 GBP in brick photo shop
agfaphoto CT precisa100 x36 6.47 GBP same shop
Fuji Provia100 x36 10.46 GBP same shop

 

[AgX]

But this is the thing, ive always understood that these dye imperfections were more the issue when printing, since the photographic paper was more sensitive to a particular colour band (cyan?) and would come out stronger on the print, so using the orange mask, compensated for this when printing?

Masking has nothin to do with the spectral sensitivity of photographic paper, but with the fact that quite alike dyes, with same imperfections are employed twice in a neg(pos process, whereas only once in a reversal process.

Thus: higher necessity but also higher final colour accuracy in the neg-pos process.

 

[Xmas]

Masking has nothin to do with the spectral sensitivity of photographic paper, but with the fact that quite alike dyes, with same imperfections are employed twice in a neg(pos process, whereas only once in a reversal process.

Thus: higher necessity but also higher final colour accuracy in the neg-pos process.

Well the brides had samples of dress material and prints and they took them both outside and compared.

More difficult to see differences when projected.

 

[Nzoomed]

Masking has nothin to do with the spectral sensitivity of photographic paper, but with the fact that quite alike dyes, with same imperfections are employed twice in a neg(pos process, whereas only once in a reversal process.

Thus: higher necessity but also higher final colour accuracy in the neg-pos process.

Yes sorry, im not thinking, your right, the imperfections are employed twice when printed. I guess i see it as sensitivity, because thats what ive read in the past on various forums etc, and thats the way it appears from a non technical perspective.

Anyway speaking of Ilfochrome.
Im keen to get a few prints done on some of my favourite photos ive shot on my E100g before its too late to do so.

Since im not aware of anyone doing it in my country, i would have to order overseas.
I dont want to send my film strips overseas, so am probably better off sending a digital file, but will there be any difference in image quality?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Henning, you are right. In a sense!

If you take an original slide it looks sharper than anything you can wish for. Its color is high contrast and grain is low. The color is high due to customer desire, not one of accuracy though, if you measure side-by-side. Grain and sharpness are high, but not appreciably higher than color negative. Remember the color print on the side of a building in NYC during the worlds fair, and the Coloramas in Grand Central Station?

Color neg prints, as viewed on-screen in theaters are the result of up to 14 generations of intermediates used for all of the SFX and yet they still stand up as high quality, good color, sharp, low grain images. Why? It is a fault of the pos-pos printing system.

Thus, a true test is to make a neg-pos print and compare it to a pos-pos print and you will find that all of the so called advantages of a positive image vanishes. After all, if you want to give copies of your work to others you need to print them.

Now, of course, you will argue that with masking and with other manipulations, pos-pos imaging can be very good. Well, you don't have to manipulate neg-pos prints for that very good result, and with manipulation, imaging can be excellent. If you don't believe me, take a picture of someone wearing a red knit sweater with an E6 and a C41 film. Make a print of each and compare the weave of the knit in the two. You will be surprised to find that in the E6 films almost as a class will show no knit, only a uniform red, while the C41 films, again almost as a class will show the knit. No worries about grain or sharpness there! No detail.

PE

 

[1L6E6VHF]

First, let me start by admitting this is a biased opinion. I don't like grain. I think it only mars a good image. In d-word photography, it's called "noise", and is usually unwanted. In analog television, it was called "snow", and people would hoist 20' long antennas onto 60' towers to get the last of it out.

When I read of Agfachrome RSX200 being "fine grain" (1995, IIRC) I excitedly tried out a roll, comparing it against Sensia 100 in my two Realists, and never bought RSX200 again. E200 was sharp and a little less grainy, but still not equal. Ditto Fuji's 400X.

That being said, I could make two cases for making slow chrome that are not related to grain.

I find that faster films seem to be far more susceptible to cosmic ray fogging than slower ones, even out of proportion to their sensitivity to visible light (speed). I had excellent results with 12-year-old Fujichrome 50 (RD), and 10-year-old KM 25 (my last Kodachrome, in 2010, was a picture of the Kodak Tower on KM 25). In contrast (no pun intended), I found Elite Chrome 200 foggy (reddish fog) only three years after the expiry date. Since many of us would like to keep a stash of chrome for some time, a long shelf life would be a plus.

Second is the prospect of coating one type of emulsion for both slides and movies. I never did use the 64 and 100 speed movie films because my cameras could not use them. An ISO 25 daylight reversal film could work with a 35mm still camera as well as regular and Super 8 ciné cameras (one may have to stick a bolt into the tripod socket to undo the 85 filter in the Super 8 models).

One funny thought about Kodachrome, is that it may be a practical route if slide film production were to be on a very small scale. This is because while Kodachrome was far more difficult to process (and it was), Kodachrome would be far easier to coat than is E6. When the scale of reversal film production had (my guesses) about 50 coating lines and about 2000 processing lines worldwide, E6 had an obvious advantage. If we are talking about a single coating line and two or three processing lines worldwide, K-14 may actually be easier.

 

[AgX]

Henning, you are right. In a sense!

If you take an original slide it looks sharper than anything you can wish for. Its color is high contrast and grain is low. The color is high due to customer desire, not one of accuracy though, if you measure side-by-side. Grain and sharpness are high, but not appreciably higher than color negative. Remember the color print on the side of a building in NYC during the worlds fair, and the Coloramas in Grand Central Station?

Color neg prints, as viewed on-screen in theaters are the result of up to 14 generations of intermediates used for all of the SFX and yet they still stand up as high quality, good color, sharp, low grain images. Why? It is a fault of the pos-pos printing system.

Thus, a true test is to make a neg-pos print and compare it to a pos-pos print and you will find that all of the so called advantages of a positive image vanishes. After all, if you want to give copies of your work to others you need to print them.

Now, of course, you will argue that with masking and with other manipulations, pos-pos imaging can be very good. Well, you don't have to manipulate neg-pos prints for that very good result, and with manipulation, imaging can be excellent. If you don't believe me, take a picture of someone wearing a red knit sweater with an E6 and a C41 film. Make a print of each and compare the weave of the knit in the two. You will be surprised to find that in the E6 films almost as a class will show no knit, only a uniform red, while the C41 films, again almost as a class will show the knit. No worries about grain or sharpness there! No detail.

PE

I'm confused...

Iniyour initial statement you compared projection imags based on a neg-pos proces to that from a reversal proess stating lesser image quality for the latter.

Now you compare the result of a neg-pos process to that of pos-pos pocess.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Please read it again. I say look at the original slide, not the projected image. Then I go on to compare projected images, remembering that all projected C41 images are prints and these prints will compare well with original slides projected to the same size, and will exceed the quality of prints from E6 and C41.

PE

 

[StoneNYC]

Is that a typo or did you mean to say images on Gold 100 were so bad you excreted them?

Well, there's your problem right there!

Oh that must be my problem, I was trying Jnanian's feces processing developer

But seriously I know lp/mm is different than grain sort of but it's still it's resolving power right? Doesn't one sort of have to do with the other?

 

[Nzoomed]

Oh that must be my problem, I was trying Jnanian's feces processing developer

But seriously I know lp/mm is different than grain sort of but it's still it's resolving power right? Doesn't one sort of have to do with the other?

It sounds to me from what ive been reading that in alot of cases that there is a payoff between resolving power and grain, e.g you can have a film with a high resolving power and the tradeoff is more grain, and the reverse can be said also.

However i dont agree with this 100% because films such as Velvia are extremley fine grained, and this film has the highest resolving power of any film today.