Movie Studios want to abandon film.

TexasLangGenius · Apr 16, 2012

Marc B. said:
Another bummer...production and manufacture ended last year for new, film-based movie cameras.

http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/film-fading-to-black

Yeah, I know, right? It all seems doom and gloom, but at least Bolex still makes 16mm cameras! I can't wait to get mine repaired!

I like how the so-called "experts" commenting at the bottom of that page say they like the visual quality and archival properties of film, but no-one just can't be bothered with the cost!

"Oh, yeah. Film is great and all, but who likes to pay for stuff?"

Well, I have a little system where I save part of my salary for shooting and processing film each month. If a lowly graduate student can find ways of saving money, so can the cheapskate movie studios. I'm not anti-digital, but one will have to pay for the cost of making a picture in either film and processing or buying expensive digital cameras, projectors and software. Choose your poison!

Digital's good for beginners on a budget and can open up possibilities that analog can't (I've made some wild abstract photos with my digital camera that required post processing), but overall, I love analog.

I pay a premium for quality, and I also plan to keep the analog flame burning by learning as much as I can about analog photography.

"Illegitimi digitali non carborundum!"

Diapositivo · Apr 17, 2012

TexasLangGenius said:
I like how the so-called "experts" commenting at the bottom of that page say they like the visual quality and archival properties of film, but no-one just can't be bothered with the cost!

"Oh, yeah. Film is great and all, but who likes to pay for stuff?"

What the experts were saying is that there is a cost in the transition to digital. Capital requirements will be partially shifted from production to projection. Archiving will be made more expensive because, with digital, archiving is much more of a "running cost".

Producers are basically trying to "shift" the costs to cinemas. In the long run, if this process continues IMO this could bring to more producers and less cinema firms, as the production side will become less capital-intensive and the projection side will become more capital-intensive.

That can be good for creativity. Imagine how easily a cartoon could be produced by a team of a few persons, without the need to find a producer with heavy shoulders financially speaking and willing to risk money on the project.

On the other hand, under this hypothesis the cinema as a family business is going to disappear. We can expect the need for large capital requirements and need of scale economies to shape the industry in favour of large "chains" of cinemas, or even an industry integration: cinema theatres owned by film producers, or in fact film producers owned by cinema theatre owners as the latter would be the big guys.

I wouldn't bet on the fast dying of traditional cinema though. Digital at the moment can only offer a certain, not large, resolution. That can be good for TV sets. If you drive and pay for a cinema seat, you can't easily be satisfied with "high resolution" digital screens. Further progress is probably needed before digital can really compete. Maybe we will have a double industry, with film projections thriving side to side with digital projections.

Brian C. Miller · Apr 17, 2012

The only "win" scenario I see is independent producers shooting film for art houses. It's the major studio that want the theaters to transition to digital. But somehow I doubt that it would be enough to, say, prop up Kodak.

M.A.Longmore · Apr 17, 2012

.
http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Products/Customer_Testimonials/Sam_Bayer/index.htm

Sam Bayer
"I love film like I love my wife and I'll never cheat on either of them"
Director, cinematographer, madman. Sam Bayer is a lot of things. One thing he's not, is a fan of shooting digital. This is your opportunity to hear Sam explain in his own words why he chooses to shoot film every time.

Read more: http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Products/Customer_Testimonials/Sam_Bayer/index.htm#ixzz1sJLnQiUF

Ron
.

Mainecoonmaniac · Apr 17, 2012

It seems that owning a movie theater is a capital intensive enterprise. These cost will be passed on to movie goers which definitely means ticket prices will go up. Currently, movie tickets are too expensive for me and I wait for the release on Netflix. I'm not going to assume that other movie goers are like me. Will tickets get so expensive because of this technology that movie house will go extinct because it's unaffordable for an average cat like me? If I'm going to pay more for something, I'd expected added value which digital cinema does not deliver.

ROL · Apr 17, 2012

CuS said:
I knew I loved Tarantino for a reason - from the article:

"Jefchak works at the New Beverly, which is owned by Quentin Tarantino. A regular at the art-house cinema, Tarantino bought the place in 2007, when it was in danger of closing. The New Beverly still plays traditional reel-to-reel 35mm, and Tarantino has said that the day the cinema puts in a digital projector is the day he burns it to the ground."

My wife doesn't love Quentin ('s theatre). She had to sit 2 rows directly behind his massive noggin at a screening there for Inglorius Basterds and missed the middle one third of the movie. Not the middle of the movie, the center third of the projection onto the screen! Well, at least the snacks were free.

DREW WILEY · Apr 18, 2012

The whole name of the game is to establish big monopolies by controlling production from capture to
dedicated distribution and projection. Independent theaters will be driven out - but that's the whole
point! No different than certain gas station chains. They find someone to take on a franchise and
build it up, then force them into a capital-intensive "improvement" contract (typically a Mini Mart),
then immediately jack up the wholesale price our their own brand of gas. They do it region by region.
So the lease holder bankrupts and the already running business reverts to the petro company itself.
I almost never go to theaters anyway - if it ain't in Technicolor, why bother?

Klainmeister · Apr 18, 2012

I saw a premier of some winter sports films last September (in prep for the season) and woefully disappointed at the digital quality. I was up front and could see squares the whole time. WTF. And the weird ghosting with fast movements almost made me ill to my stomach. The silliest part is the fact that the digital technologies used for both filming and projection were advertised when we first sat down.

I'm not sure I can stomach that again. Give me film or give me nothing at all.

MattKing · Apr 18, 2012

DREW WILEY said:
The whole name of the game is to establish big monopolies by controlling production from capture to
dedicated distribution and projection. Independent theaters will be driven out - but that's the whole
point! No different than certain gas station chains. They find someone to take on a franchise and
build it up, then force them into a capital-intensive "improvement" contract (typically a Mini Mart),
then immediately jack up the wholesale price our their own brand of gas. They do it region by region.
So the lease holder bankrupts and the already running business reverts to the petro company itself.
I almost never go to theaters anyway - if it ain't in Technicolor, why bother?

Drew:

A friend of mine was in management with one of the smaller Canadian gas companies. He used to say that the retail margins on gasoline sales were so narrow that every station that put in a "Mini Mart" operation immediately increased their retail profits tremendously.

And car washes made more money than gas sales as well.

ricardo12458 · Apr 18, 2012

GIVE ME FILM OR GIVE ME DEATH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-R

amsp · Apr 19, 2012

Klainmeister said:
I saw a premier of some winter sports films last September (in prep for the season) and woefully disappointed at the digital quality. I was up front and could see squares the whole time. WTF. And the weird ghosting with fast movements almost made me ill to my stomach. The silliest part is the fact that the digital technologies used for both filming and projection were advertised when we first sat down.

I'm not sure I can stomach that again. Give me film or give me nothing at all.

Much like the 3D gimmick. It only took two movies for me to say never again, and this is supposed to be the future of cinema? I'm not even old enough to be nostalgic or anything, but it's obvious to me that things nowadays are moving in the wrong direction on many fronts. Quality, skill and craftsmanship is being replaced with cheap, fast and convenient. Film related businesses are struggling while Instagram, a cellphone app that adds some crappy filter to your low-res photo and uploads them to a website, sells for a billion dollars. I mean seriously, wtf?

Steve Smith · Apr 19, 2012

amsp said:
Much like the 3D gimmick. It only took two movies for me to say never again, and this is supposed to be the future of cinema?

I have seen advertisements for Titanic saying is now in 3D. How can that be? Surely it wasn't filmed in 3D?

Steve.

benjiboy · Apr 19, 2012

amsp said:
Related or not to this thread, I find it sickening that we live in a world where thousands of people can loose their jobs just so a few already extremely rich people can line their pockets with a couple of extra millions. Oftentimes at the expense of quality and workmanship at the same time. Ahhhh, progress.

It's the way of the World and it's not going to change "Capitalism is savagery"

polyglot · Apr 19, 2012

Steve Smith said:
I have seen advertisements for Titanic saying is now in 3D. How can that be? Surely it wasn't filmed in 3D?

Steve.

No but you can fake it. Some pseudo-3D titles have objects placed in distinct layers and look really bad but computer vision is advancing to the point where it's possible to generate depth from optical flow in the scene and use camera motion as a source of parallax; very similar mathematics to synthetic aperture radar. Results vary but can be excellent with a little manual tweaking.

There were some good (academic) demos about 2008 showing 3D scene reconstruction (triangles meshes and textures) just using video from a moving camera. I expect by now that the process is more reliable though of course I've no idea if that's what any particular studio is doing.

Thomas Bertilsson · Apr 19, 2012

polyglot said:
No but you can fake it. Some pseudo-3D titles have objects placed in distinct layers and look really bad but computer vision is advancing to the point where it's possible to generate depth from optical flow in the scene and use camera motion as a source of parallax; very similar mathematics to synthetic aperture radar. Results vary but can be excellent with a little manual tweaking.

There were some good (academic) demos about 2008 showing 3D scene reconstruction (triangles meshes and textures) just using video from a moving camera. I expect by now that the process is more reliable though of course I've no idea if that's what any particular studio is doing.

A friend of mine was dabbling with this a few years ago, creating 3D pictures from regular 2D photographs. The idea was to break the picture in layers, and have custom software approximate what a stereo view of that scene would be like, based on what the surrounding looks like. It worked out OK, but it was 4-5 years ago, and a lot has happened since with technology.

I've seen one movie in 3D, and frankly will not pursue it again, as it looked awful to me. At the same time, when I go to the cinema, I usually sit far back where I can't tell enough difference between digital and film projection to care, and basically have no preference whether the film was shot with digital or with film, as long as the movie itself is good. I do care about the movie itself, how good the story is, how well the characters are developed, directing, convincing acting, cinematography, gesture, suspension of disbelief, lighting... And that's the main reason I don't find myself attracted to many of the movies out there anymore. The last inspiring movie I watched was Lars von Trier's 'Melancholia'. However it was filmed, it was a spectacular movie and worth seeing.

We, as a subset of society, are worried about this switch from film to digital, mostly for the simple fact that movie film production largely dictates still film production, and we don't wish to see it vanish. If Kodak did not make Vision movie stock, could they continue making just still film?

JerryWo · Apr 19, 2012

Well, if Sam Bayer is lucky, the Library of Congress will save his precious films by digitizing them. See:
http://www.loc.gov/avconservation/packard/

Our local public radio station, WAMU, had a nice little program dealing with the Packard Campus. Here's the link:
Dead Link Removed

Jerry
Warrenton, VA

Steve Smith · Apr 19, 2012

polyglot said:
I've no idea if that's what any particular studio is doing.

But now, I do: http://www.moviehole.net/201149968leash-talks-to-james-cameron-about-titanic-3d

Steve.

Brian C. Miller · Apr 19, 2012

Thomas Bertilsson said:
We, as a subset of society, are worried about this switch from film to digital, mostly for the simple fact that movie film production largely dictates still film production, and we don't wish to see it vanish. If Kodak did not make Vision movie stock, could they continue making just still film?

Once upon a time, some studio reps came to Kodak and asked for a tweak to the emulsion. Kodak said, "get stuffed, you're 5% of our business." Now the movie industry is 95% percent of Kodak's business, and Kodak only has one coating machine running less than 40hrs per week.

Kodak prices have increased 15%.

What would a loss of 95% of their business do to them?

A: Kodak film goes away, forever.
B: Kodak raises its prices 10x to make ends meet.

Which is more likely? The answer is A, because answer B just means A will happen because nobody will pay $50 for a 35mm roll of Tri-X.

Mainecoonmaniac · Apr 19, 2012

Thomas Bertilsson said:
I've seen one movie in 3D, and frankly will not pursue it again, as it looked awful to me.

Same here. I saw Hugo in 3D and the look was awful. It looked cold. Otherwise, the movie in 2D probably looked better without those cheap glasses. The production just looked luscious. Just think. A multi-million dollar production seen through $3 glasses? Cinematographers are artist and have been able to create a feeling of 3D without the use of technology. Renaissance painters have been able to create depth through perspective, values and color for a long time. I still like the look of movies shot on film stock projected with prints. I do have to say that with the development of digital cinema, a lot of small film makers are able to produce movies without buying film stock and the expensive processing involved. But for big time movie producers, there's no excuse other than making more money. Will movies shot on film will be only limited to fine art like still photography? :confused:

georg16nik · Apr 19, 2012

Heads up from The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences

Inside the Booth: A Journey through Projection
4/19 @ 7:30 p.m. - At the Linwood Dunn Theater, Academy chief projectionist Marshall Gitlitz and silent film historian/projectionist Joe Rinaudo explore the craft and art of projection in Hollywood's golden age, with clips and demonstrations

"Tech Art 2: The Projection Story"
Now through 5/6 - In the foyer of the Linwood Dunn Theater, an exhibition celebrating the craft of motion picture projection with over 30 photographs by Vince Gonzales and a display of projectors and equipment.

DREW WILEY · Apr 19, 2012

Matt - what certain companies do with their name-brand gas here is called Zone pricing. They might
sell the same gas to independents cheaper, but to their branded dealers they set pricing policy within certain geographic zones. So at the same time they force the fanchisees into taking on major
reinvestment with new tanks, new store, etc. - all financed by the oil corp itself. Then they raise
the distr cost of gas to all their outlets in that specific zone, so that they effectively lose money on
it if they try to compete with even the independents. This has gone on for decades. Shell Oil is the
biggest culprit. Not an ideal analogy, but I can easily visalize how the movie thing could have a similar outcome. But I personally have very little interest in the endless digital zip-zap stuff anyway.
I'd rather see the real pro quality lighting and color skills of days of yore. If it's good acting,
we'll just rent a DVD.

marylandphoto · Apr 22, 2012

Even movies originally shot on 35mm haven't looked consistently good in awhile, thanks to the "digital intermediate" techniques which are usually used to negative effect and take some of the soul out of the analog image. Best looking films were generally late 70s-mid 80s IMO.

ROL · Apr 23, 2012

georg16nik said:
Heads up from The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences

I've seen many films at the Linwood Dunn. It is a great venue with many full size poster (repros?) in the halls, and a great educational outreach program, which I believe is open to anyone. I would encourage anyone interested in film or film making, who resides or will be visiting LA, to take advantage of their programs.

Alan Klein · Apr 23, 2012

Problem with many theaters is they lower the arc light so the display looks dark not in the bright colors the film was photographed and printed in and provided to the theaters. Sometimes I've complained to management at the theater, usually to no avail. MY guess is 3/4's of the patrons don't even realize they're watching in an inferior mode.

Mainecoonmaniac · Apr 24, 2012

I didn't know that. Does that make the print last longer or just to save electricity?

Movie Studios want to abandon film.

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency