Renew My Faith Please ...

[Tom Kershaw]

I think long term means centuries.

 

[Dave Miller]

I think long term means centuries.

As quick as that?

 

[digiconvert]

Given that some people are still having fun with glass plates while some still use PAINT to capture an image I think that 35mm, 120 and LF film may be around for some time yet .

 

[Wigwam Jones]

Sorry, I would have posted my reply here, but it was too long.

Dead Link Removed

Smooches,

Wiggy

 

[Kino]

Sorry, I would have posted my reply here, but it was too long.

Dead Link Removed

Smooches,

Wiggy

Oh to live in your world of absolutes, Wiggy.

Too bad we don't know enough to quit right now.

Somehow, I'll take your ironclad answer with a grain of salt and continue in this doomed enterprise called film.

 

[Wigwam Jones]

Oh to live in your world of absolutes, Wiggy.

Too bad we don't know enough to quit right now.

Somehow, I'll take your ironclad answer with a grain of salt and continue in this doomed enterprise called film.

Any attempt to put together information, draw conclusions, and support them with reason and logic is seen as an attack. How unfortunate.

I never suggested anyone "quit now."

I spoke with the authority of reason, but indicated that I am ready to be proven wrong, and would in fact welcome it.

And I intend to continue to use film as well, for as long as I can economically obtain it.

This is why everyone hates the weatherman. It doesn't change the weather, though.

 

[Andy K]

Weathermen are often wrong.

 

[Wigwam Jones]

Weathermen are often wrong.

Predictions in general are often wrong. Doesn't stop people from making 'em, and the more facts one has in hand, the better logic one uses to assemble said facts, the better the chances the prediction will be right.

However, if it makes more sense to play make-believe based on no facts whatever, then perhaps it will not rain anyway, so by all means press on.

No point in attempting to make informed decisions about what the future may hold - it could be wrong, so let's all live in utter ignorance.

Happy days indeed.

 

[Andy K]

However, if it makes more sense to play make-believe based on no facts whatever, then perhaps it will not rain anyway, so by all means press on.

No point in attempting to make informed decisions about what the future may hold - it could be wrong, so let's all live in utter ignorance.

Happy days indeed.

Wow! That's touchy! You got all that from a four word statement?

 

[Wigwam Jones]

Wow! That's touchy! You got all that from a four word statement?

No, why would you think that?

 

[unregistered]

Oh to live in your world of absolutes, Wiggy.

Too bad we don't know enough to quit right now.

Somehow, I'll take your ironclad answer with a grain of salt and continue in this doomed enterprise called film.

LOL

Good one

 

[unregistered]

Wow! That's touchy! You got all that from a four word statement?

LOL

 

[Kino]

Any attempt to put together information, draw conclusions, and support them with reason and logic is seen as an attack. How unfortunate.

I never suggested anyone "quit now."

I spoke with the authority of reason, but indicated that I am ready to be proven wrong, and would in fact welcome it.

And I intend to continue to use film as well, for as long as I can economically obtain it.

This is why everyone hates the weatherman. It doesn't change the weather, though.

I never said you attacked anyone, you are now jumping to conclusions.

I suggested we quit now; you didn't.

Your "authority of reason" is a pretty grandiose claim; your "proof" is still conjecture because you forecast the future.

I have known excellent weathermen, you, dear sir, are not a weatherman.

Lets just agree to disagree.

 

[JBrunner]

Sorry, I would have posted my reply here, but it was too long.

Dead Link Removed

Smooches,

Wiggy

Interesting read dude.

Your assessment of the motion picture industry is incorrect.

 

[Wigwam Jones]

Your assessment of the motion picture industry is incorrect.

How so?

 

[roteague]

In fact, read the whole article here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmgoingaway.htm

Steve.

Ken also says that film is obsolete. He is a nice guy, but has very staunch opinions on various subjects.

 

[Terence]

Sorry, I would have posted my reply here, but it was too long.

Dead Link Removed

Smooches,

Wiggy

I mostly agree with your reasoning, as it applies to color film. Black & white film has been a niche market for two decades, though, and I think will stick it out longer than color by a fair margin. How long? Who knows. The upside being that aside from the film itself, everything else for b&w photography (developers, fixers, paper, etc) can be readily made at home, albeit with some small forays into the "alternative" processes.

Again, worse comes to worst, I have a couple thousand feet of 70mm B&W film for medium format and can convert my large format to wet-plate, etc.

 

[unregistered]

I have known excellent weathermen, you, dear sir, are not a weatherman.

ROFLMAO!

 

[JBrunner]

How so?

Well, I can't go off on the other stuff because IDK enough.

In regards to motion picture there are some mixed messages that have to do with politics, and also the marketing hype of various video manufactures, but at the end of the day, currently:

It's not 1930. Theatre owners (or rather the giant corporations that own theatres) are not resistant to digital distribution and projection. They want it, and they want it bad. They dream of a pimply faced popcorn kid pushing a button, or even better, a fully automatic system downloading and showing the movie, rather than the union projectionist, who is the highest paid person in the theatre, making more than the managers. They would like to finally and completely break the projectionists union. (no politics here, that just whats up) They also dream of not paying to ship thousands of pounds (a theatrical movie print is about 10 thousand feet long) of prints all over the world. They would also love to take the distributors out of the game, and digital delivery would be major milestone in that direction.

The resistance to digital delivery and projection is coming from just about everybody else in the industry. Cost of raw stock and proccesing is a miniscule part of a major motion picture budget, so the mistaken impetus that drives consumers to digital is not a factor. Also, the gap between video technology and motion picture film is vast, compared to still technology, and video is cleary, painfully, inferior to film to even a lay person when projected. Bottom line- very few producers will risk compromise. Currently there is no real consumable digital product available for the theatres to project, even though they want to, and the distributors will make sure there isn't, unless they can insure their cut.

Most working directors of photography despise video origination, and indeed it is a huge step backwards, in pretty much every way. That is why (hype aside) 99.9% of motion pictures are quietly shot on film. Were not talking about wannabes here, were talking about the big and small dogs who's work you see in a theatre. There are far far fewer luddites on APUG than in the motion picture industry.

The stock running through a motion picture picture camera is a completely different emulsion type than what consumers shoot in SLR's. It's continued viability does not depend at all on consumer sales, but rather it's continued use in professional application in motion picture cameras. The amount of film used in one movie is staggering. Even the piddly little movies I shoot grind through between 100,000-250,000 feet of film in 12-18 days. Six movies in SLC right now. Thats about a million and a half feet of film this month shot in this backwater.The consumer market could vaporize tomorrow and it would have no effect on motion picture stock. The division would grind on happily making film and money for Kodak.

The materials to make motion picture film are hardly so exotic that they will preclude the manufacture of it for people who are willing to pay.

Kodak considers its motion picture imaging division its untouchable golden boy, the cash cow that will fund their flopping and ill directed efforts at becoming a "digital" company.

They are different emulsions, different products, so the "Hollywood still uses film, so I will always be able to buy film for my SLR" is incorrect, as you wrote, but not for the reasons you stated.

 

[Wigwam Jones]

I mostly agree with your reasoning, as it applies to color film. Black & white film has been a niche market for two decades, though, and I think will stick it out longer than color by a fair margin. How long? Who knows. The upside being that aside from the film itself, everything else for b&w photography (developers, fixers, paper, etc) can be readily made at home, albeit with some small forays into the "alternative" processes.

Again, worse comes to worst, I have a couple thousand feet of 70mm B&W film for medium format and can convert my large format to wet-plate, etc.

I agree with you that B&W film will be produced longer than color film. There are more manufacturers, some of whom have been producing on smaller scales for some time now - and some are located in countries with, shall we say, indifferent attention to chemical additives to soil and water tables.

I also agree that just about everything else except the film can be manufactured on a small scale and sold boutique-fashion, but when the last frozen stashes of film are unpacked and used, decades after the last manufacturer shuts down, then what?

I actually believe glass plates hold some promise, or something very much like them. I believe Ron Mowery (sp?) has been doing some interesting work with coating things other than film with photosensitive materials.

 

[Rob Skeoch]

Although you guys are probally correct I bought a 35mm film camera today. A couple years ago when the canon mark II came out I switched from Nikon to Canon but didn't bother to buy a film camera.
I've had the itch to buy one for a while and when I had to borrow a Nikon F4 from the newspaper so my high school age daughter could take a media class I decided it was time.
I bought one of the Eos IV. I've heard it's the best film camera they ever made.. I hope so. Plus I bought 10 rolls of delta 400.
Digital is great for working but who wants to sit in front of a computer for a hobby after working in front of one all day.
-Rob Skeoch
bigcameraworkshops.com

 

[Wigwam Jones]

It's not 1930. Theatre owners (or rather the giant corporations that own theatres) are not resistant to digital distribution and projection. They want it, and they want it bad.

I have been reading that estimated upgrade costs are around 100K to 150K USD per screen, and they either can't pay it, or they want some kind of arrangement so they don't have to pay it all.

The resistance to digital delivery and projection is coming from just about everybody else in the industry.

Yes, not least of all from the industry itself, concerned about pristine digital copies 'leaking' out, instead of some guy with a steadycam in the front row taping the show.

Also, the gap between video technology and motion picture film is vast, compared to still technology, and video is cleary, painfully, inferior to film to even a lay person when projected.

It's the same with film cameras versus digital cameras - film is superior still. However, the market speaks, and manufacturers listen. Even in my tiny town:

http://archive.wilsondaily.com/arch...ds&archive_pubname=The+Wilson+Daily+Times

New theater opens Friday
Date June 03, 2006
By Keith Barnes

...

The opening features on all 10 screens are all first-run movies, but on this particular occasion the movies being shown take a back seat to the building itself.

...

The modern facility, to be called Carmike 10, will feature state-of-the-art digital projection, a relatively new concept to the movie industry but one that viewers will soon appreciate.

Few theaters are completely digital, and this is among the first anywhere to use all-digital technology on every screen.

Digital projection offers sharper and crisper screen images with more vibrant colors, and officials promise that viewers will quickly recognize the difference in quality.

Bottom line- very few producers will risk compromise. Currently there is no real consumable digital product available for the theatres to project, even though they want to, and the distributors will make sure there isn't, unless they can insure their cut.

I hear you, and it sounds like you're closer to the industry than I am, but that's not what I'm reading in the trades. I can start digging them out and quoting them if you want my sources, but I'm willing to admit that you may be right and my sources may be incorrect - or hype.

Most working directors of photography despise video origination, and indeed it is a huge step backwards, in pretty much every way. That is why (hype aside) 99.9% of motion pictures are quietly shot on film. Were not talking about wannabes here, were talking about the big and small dogs who's work you see in a theatre. There are far far fewer luddites on APUG than in the motion picture industry.

I know that Lucas famously said he would never do another film with film again, pure digital or nothing. At least, that's what I recall.

The stock running through a motion picture picture camera is a completely different emulsion type than what consumers shoot in SLR's. It's continued viability does not depend at all on consumer sales, but rather it's continued use in professional application in motion picture cameras.

I have to agree that the emulsion is different, but it is still made the same manner, with the same chemistry, in the same factories. It does indeed depend on consumer film sales, which outstrip motion picture sales by an order of magnitude. When the consumer film lines shut down, that's it for motion picture film as well - my opinion.

The amount of film used in one movie is staggering. Even the piddly little movies I shoot grind through between 100,000-250,000 feet of film in 12-18 days. Six movies in SLC right now. Thats about a million and a half feet of film this month shot in this backwater.The consumer market could vaporize tomorrow and it would have no effect on motion picture stock. The division would grind on happily making film and money for Kodak.

I was looking for some of my original research that would back me up in saying that motion picture film sales are totally outstripped by consumer film sales, but I seem not to be able to locate it at the moment. I did find this, which would tend to support your statement - from Kodak's 2005 Annual Stockholder Report:

Digital & Film Imaging Systems (D&FIS) Segment
Sales from continuing operations of the D&FIS segment for 2005, 2004 and 2003 were (in millions) $8,460, $9,366 and $9,415, respectively.
This segment combines digital and traditional photography and imaging services in all its forms, including consumer, professional and motion
picture. ...
Digital product offerings are replacing some of the traditional film products at varying rates. For example, the workflow improvements offered by
digital are having relatively more significant effects in the professional markets, while digital is having little impact in the entertainment markets.

The materials to make motion picture film are hardly so exotic that they will preclude the manufacture of it for people who are willing to pay.

Well, I still have to disagree with the above. Many of the raw materials that go into making film - consumer still film and motion picture film alike - were made for Kodak by Kodak - Eastman Chemical, to be precise. They don't do that anymore - they make biodiesel down at their plant in Kentucky. The huge drums they used to use to mix some of the more exotic chemistry are now being used to ferment french fry oil. There's no coming back from that.

Kodak considers its motion picture imaging division its untouchable golden boy, the cash cow that will fund their flopping and ill directed efforts at becoming a "digital" company.

I have to disagree with that as well. Kodak lost 1.1 billion USD last year, and most of that was due to flagging film sales - digital kept them afloat. It's in the annual report. If they had to depend on film sales, they'd be gone already.

They are different emulsions, different products, so the "Hollywood still uses film, so I will always be able to buy film for my SLR" is incorrect, as you wrote, but not for the reasons you stated.

Well, white bread and wheat bread are both different, but they're baked in the same ovens and use the same basic ingredients. I don't think they are as different as you make them out to be when you reduce them to the components that go into making them.

However, you've given me some more research to do with regard to the DCI:

Digital Cinema Initiatives, LLC (DCI) was created in March 2002, as a joint venture of Disney, Fox, MGM, Paramount, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Universal and Warner Bros. Studios. DCI's primary purpose is to establish and document voluntary specifications for an open architecture for digital cinema that ensures a uniform and high level of technical performance, reliability and quality control. DCI will also facilitate the development of business plans and strategies to help spur deployment of digital cinema systems in movie theaters.

http://wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,66039,00.html

NOTE: This is from 2004, the number of US movie houses having gone digital is much higher now...

Brit Film Future Is Digital
By Jason Silverman
The Digital Screen Network, an initiative of the U.K. Film Council, is providing government funds for installation of digital projectors in commercial theaters. The program will disburse an estimated $25 million to install approximately 250 digital projectors in theaters throughout the United Kingdom. (By comparison, there are currently about 120 digital projectors in U.S. movie houses.) Applications for funding closed Dec. 10.

More interesting information here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinematography

Anyway, thanks for the thoughtful reply!

 

[JBrunner]

Couple of things without needing to belabor everything:

Goerge Lucas is a microcosm, resposible for a microscopic amount of product viewed in the scale of the industry as a whole, but he is always drug out when this subject comes up. Steven Spielberg said "I will shoot film until the last lab closes down" Same thing.

Also the way I understood the report Big Yellow is losing money hand over fist with digital, and the motion picture and medical sales are whats keeping them afloat. IDK for sure because who knows whats spun what way for what end. Anyway, very interesting.

 

[Wigwam Jones]

Couple of things without needing to belabor everything:

Goerge Lucas is a microcosm, resposible for a microscopic amount of product viewed in the scale of the industry as a whole, but he is always drug out when this subject comes up. Steven Spielberg said "I will shoot film until the last lab closes down" Same thing.

Also the way I understood the report Big Yellow is losing money hand over fist with digital, and the motion picture and medical sales are whats keeping them afloat. IDK for sure because who knows whats spun what way for what end. Anyway, very interesting.

It all depends upon how you slice it and dice it. On the numbers - strict interpretation of financial results shows film making a 'profit' even with reduced sales figures and digital losing money. However, Kodak is putting massive R&D money into digital and zero dollars into R&D for film.

The following is instructive:

http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/11/115911/reports/1q06transcript.pdf

I won't quote it massively, but I think this is interesting (from last month):

The Film & Photofinishing Systems segment performed essentially on expectation, as we rapidly reduce our manufacturing assets and employment in line with revenue decline.

Moving onto the Film and Photo-finishing Group, revenues declined 28%, as a result of continuing secular declines in consumer film and photo finishing. In the quarter, the motion picture film portfolio was down 7%, largely due to unfavorable foreign exchange, more conservative release strategies by the major studios, and an increase in the proportion of independent versus studio feature film releases.

To be fair to what you're saying, CEO Perez did say this:

Operator: And we'll take our next question from Laura Starr with Equinox Capital Management.

Laura Starr: I just wanted to ask a question about the film - the Entertainment Imaging business. It was down seven percent in the first quarter. When you look to the second quarter, the line-up of blockbuster sort of movies coming out over the next three months is much higher than last year. Are you expecting the comparison this year in second quarter versus last year to be much higher?

Antonio Perez: Hi, Laura. Yes. It went down in the first quarter. We think this is caused by poor content – content that hasn't been accepted by the audiences. This is factual data: in North America, the attendance has grown two to three percent this year. The number of people going to see movies has gone up.

Laura Starr: Right. And the box office is up too, this year.

Antonio Perez: Yes. And their revenue is about five percent up. This is before Memorial Day weekend, which is normally the time when all the blockbusters that you mentioned are ready to come into play. So, I don't know how those are going to be received. We're optimistic but we keep saying the same thing we said before – we expect this business to re-flourish.

We don't expect this business to grow significantly or go down significantly. On the other hand, we have seen a shortening in what is called the theatrical window - the time from movies going to the theatres and then coming into DVD's. It does not seem to affect the number of attendees to the theatres. We're doing well with our digital program. Our preshow digital – we are actually the largest supplier of independent theatres as far as preshow
digital projection. We have about 2,000 installations already in place. We have a system that can actually perform through HD. We are ready for whatever happens - although it's going to happen slowly. There are going to be some pilots this year and next year and the year after. This is going to be, in our view, a long process and a hybrid industry and we'll be working through it.

Frankly, that sounds like someone hedging their bets to me. He doesn't want to come out and say that motion picture film is dead like he famously did with still picture film some time back (since countered by spinmeisters doing damage control), and he even says he expects a 'bounce' back in revenue, but he is also saying Kodak is getting ready with digital solutions, and in other places, he notes that the increase in silver prices recently would spell a 250 million dollar loss if they did not triple film prices to match that cost, and that Kodak continues to reduce manufacturing capability and let people go to support that.

 

[nc5p]

The industry has been trying to make video cameras look like film for over 20 years. Ikegami claimed back in the mid eighties that one of their cameras looked like film. That was back when they were using saticon tubes. The electronic cameras still to this day have a problem with highlights. This is why even some tv shows are still shot on film. The cameras have got better but a lot of cinematographers still prefer the look of film, even though much of it is processed and immediately converted into digital for posting.

Doug