The end of film? First studio stops distributing celluloid

[PKM-25]

Cool, do you ever use an IR filter with HIE or not? Glad you keep on going.

I use at least a 29 red if not a 87c which I have an IR meter for. This was with the 29, crappy D800 scan so I can show the athletes the IR effect when I approach them tomorrow. We now have Winter X for 5 more years after this one so I think I am going to use 5-10 rolls of HIE on it per year until I run out, should be a sick body of work when 2020 rolls around...

Back on topic, forget about when MP stock is done, we have no idea what K-Alaris has in store to keep the coating lines going once MP film hits rock bottom, you have to know they are making that transition a top priority...

 

[RattyMouse]

I keep saying how many young people I run into that *LOVE* shooting film and how they are not only not jaded from losing products that very few ever used but are amazed at how many great films there are out there.

So every year, I shoot black and white at the Winter X Games and this year it is some of my Kodak HIE in 35mm & 120. Today, this 21 year old woman was over the moon to see me shooting a Nikon FM3A and Hasselblad. We talked for awhile and she really echoed what I have been telling you all for years, stop pining for what we no longer have, get out and crush it with fresh imagery on film, because that is what moves film forward, not AARP conventions of how it used to be....

Absolutely! I was out there "crushing it" with film yesterday. Then, when I got home, I hit the "lab" and got to work. 4 rolls developed, one after another. It was a mini marathon session for me, as I never did more than 2 rolls in a day before.

I just love turning my bathroom into this.

 

[Henning Serger]

I keep saying how many young people I run into that *LOVE* shooting film and how they are not only not jaded from losing products that very few ever used but are amazed at how many great films there are out there.

So every year, I shoot black and white at the Winter X Games and this year it is some of my Kodak HIE in 35mm & 120. Today, this 21 year old woman was over the moon to see me shooting a Nikon FM3A and Hasselblad. We talked for awhile and she really echoed what I have been telling you all for years, stop pining for what we no longer have, get out and crush it with fresh imagery on film, because that is what moves film forward, not AARP conventions of how it used to be....

+1, exactly Daniel.
I am also teaching film photography to young photographers. And they are always asking me: "Wow, so much different films, so much variety, which ones should I use...." .

Best regards,
Henning

P.S.:
- In BW I have now more options compared to the time when I started BW as a young guy. And the films are of much better quality. Delta 100, TMY-2, CMS 20 II, CoRa? I only could have dreamt of such amazing films at my beginning.
- And for color: The quality difference is even bigger. I prefer having three really excellent films to having ten mediocre films. I don't miss Kodachrome for example, Provia 100F is so much better in all parameters.
- Movie: Here in my area all the cinemas have installed digital projectors parallel to the film projectors, so the film projectors are all still there and can be used at least.

 

[StoneNYC]

I use at least a 29 red if not a 87c which I have an IR meter for. This was with the 29, crappy D800 scan so I can show the athletes the IR effect when I approach them tomorrow. We now have Winter X for 5 more years after this one so I think I am going to use 5-10 rolls of HIE on it per year until I run out, should be a sick body of work when 2020 rolls around...

Back on topic, forget about when MP stock is done, we have no idea what K-Alaris has in store to keep the coating lines going once MP film hits rock bottom, you have to know they are making that transition a top priority...

Cool, I didn't know that that had planned to discontinue the winter-x games...

Good luck! Now why don't you start shooting the games with your 4x5!

 

[Prof_Pixel]

I wonder if our gigantic hole in the ground up the street, which is going to become the new Pacific Film Archive, is going to actually show film.
Otherwise they should be honest enough to rename it as the Pacific Pixel Archive.

Note that the term 'film' can mean:

film
noun
plural noun: films

1. 
a thin flexible strip of plastic or other material coated with light-sensitive emulsion for exposure in a camera, used to produce photographs or motion pictures."he had already shot a whole roll of film"


2. 
a motion picture; a movie."a horror film"



So the name 'Pacific Film Archive' would be correct even if it was all digital.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Another interesting point is archiving. But please listen to this NPR story.

http://www.npr.org/2014/01/26/266515266/paramount-cuts-film-giving-the-starring-role-to-digital

 

[AgX]

The amount of film needed for an archive copy (max. 3x the lenght of a release copy) is miniscule compared to the volume made up by hundreds of release copies employed for many movies.

 

[falotico]

Paramount Picturs says it will still distribute some 35mm prints of its movies on film.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...digital-20140128,0,276668.story#axzz2rikpfNI6

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I think movies will still be shot digitally

Paramount Picturs says it will still distribute some 35mm prints of its movies on film.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...digital-20140128,0,276668.story#axzz2rikpfNI6

I think they might use film recorders to make the prints. Which means they'll "print" the movie from a digital file on to a piece of film with a film recorder.

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

It's still film I guess.

 

[ME Super]

I can tell you as someone who has sent digital files to Dwayne's Photo for printing to slide film, that I was hard pressed to tell that they were digital printed to film than shot on film originally when I projected them at reasonable home viewing sizes. I suppose I could've seen the difference had I projected on the side of the garage and pixel peeped. A couple of the files were scans that weren't so great, but here again, Garbage In, Garbage Out. When the source material was good, the end result was good as well.

 

[visualbassist]

most movies you saw from the past 10-15 years have been scanned, edited and graded digitally and recorded back onto film for ditribution.

 

[StoneNYC]

most movies you saw from the past 10-15 years have been scanned, edited and graded digitally and recorded back onto film for ditribution.

I bet it's been even longer than that ;-0

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Doc Martin

I was listening to Rick Steves' radio show interviewing Martin Clunes. He's the producer and Mr. Clunes says it's shot on film. He says he liked the look of it. The show does looks lushous to me.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Doc Martin

...Martin Clunes. He's the producer...

Actually, his wife Philippa Braithwaite is the producer.

...and Mr. Clunes says it's shot on film. He says he liked the look of it...

During its fundraising right now, our local PBS station is running a "making of" short about the program that was shot last year during Series 6 production. I was excited to no end when it revealed that film cameras are still being used. One can actually see a magazine being attached to one.

Thanks for the tip; I'll try to find an on-line way to hear that Rick Steves interview.

EDIT: OK, here's the link:

http://www.ricksteves.com/watch-read-listen/audio/radio​

Clunes' interview starts at 33:30. Steves does call him co-producer, although on-screen credits identify only Braithwaite. The shot-on-film comments can be found from 39:00 - 39:20.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Probably not the end of non-motion picture film, but certainly the end of my patronizing any theaters. What's the point? There's a nice TV in my home.

Well, time to eat crow. Yesterday, as has been our tradition, my wife wanted to "go see a movie" on Christmas day. So, even though the theater we've patronized (that until last year had kept one screen with film projection) has capitulated to distributors and gone fully digital, I agreed to see "The Imitation Game," which was originated on film. I'm not sure what projection equipment specifications were involved, but the image was still acceptable to me. Small differences included no image wander and a lack of flicker, but otherwise film's superior characteristics came through. Preview trailers for features shot digitally had an obvious "video" look. My new line in the sand is "only features originated on film.

 

[StoneNYC]

Well, time to eat crow. Yesterday, as has been our tradition, my wife wanted to "go see a movie" on Christmas day. So, even though the theater we've patronized (that until last year had kept one screen with film projection) has capitulated to distributors and gone fully digital, I agreed to see "The Imitation Game," which was originated on film. I'm not sure what projection equipment specifications were involved, but the image was still acceptable to me. Small differences included no image wander and a lack of flicker, but otherwise film's superior characteristics came through. Preview trailers for features shot digitally had an obvious "video" look. My new line in the sand is "only features originated on film.

I still like to go to this one theater in my area which did not convert over to digital and continued using the old film projectors for movies since they still distributed movies on film.

Well, now that some distributors are not sending out film movies, the theater hasn't done so well and they will be closing the doors early this upcoming year...

I agree, movies that were originated on film still hold at least some of the film characteristics, and are certainly better then the digital originated movies in terms of subtle image quality.

I do not purposefully go to movies that were only originated on film, however I can instantly tell when they were, and after the movie is over I go home and look it up to see if I was right, I have not been wrong once yet

When digital can fool me, it will be an interesting day.

 

[Roger Cole]

I'm really not sure I can tell the difference, and honestly I care even less than I can tell. I shoot film because I enjoy the process. But the process of watching the movie is the same either way. If I could tell a difference it might matter to me but I never notice one. Now some of the previews, and the definitely crappy resolution advertisements before hand, those I can tell.

But I rarely go to theaters now anyway. I'll probably see the newest Hobbit movie because I'm a big Tolkien fan. But I have seen exactly one movie in a theater (Guardians of the Galaxy) since the last Hobbit movie last year. Instead I just wait for their release on Blu-Ray or Netflix and watching at home on my very digital projector with the 11' wide screen and 5.1 sound. More than close enough, the popcorn and snacks are much cheaper, no gas burned, no waiting in line, pause any time, bring my dog down to sit on the couch with us, whatever. Of course it's digital. Looks great to me though so I don't care.

I'm a bit fanatical in my devotion to USING film, but even then not 100% - I shoot my share of iPhone snapshots and it's mainly trying to save money that's stopped me from buying a digital camera for all those family and vacation shots I just don't have time (or inclination, to be honest) to do properly in the darkroom.

 

[shutterlight]

It's usually a straightforward task to tell if something was made on film-- look at the highlights. Digital still can't manage the highlights, unless the lighting is well controlled. Skies continue to be blown out in digitally recorded films if there's a big enough difference between the highlights and darker areas. Movies done with film just don't have that problem. It's most obvious on low-budget documentaries, and sometimes high-budget ones as well (sports is another area where you see this a lot) Camera pans to the sky, and the highlights are completely gone.

So long as digital can't manage highlights the way color negative film can, I'll keep right on using film. That and I strongly prefer a 4x5 crop and dislike 35mm, but that's another story.

 

[Xmas]

The question would be--what percentage of all film base is used for 35mm and 70mm print film? It seems like it must be significant.

In the loooong past it was about 90%.
Still and movie cam film may have contracted pro rata.

But the key point is Ron's if Sony have 'rented' Kodaks coater for five years of ECN then we (would) have five years of fresh Tx and TMY-2? A possible alternative is less good

Not been in movie theatre since the general release of Alien, only watch TV in shop windows.

Note ilford made mono cine until 2002-2004 I still shoot HP5+ B&H sprockets.

 

[Truzi]

I watch old movies on TV. Some are well done, others have issues simply because of the state of the technology back when they were made. I watch them because I like them or find them interesting.

I'd do the same with movies captured on digital... except it seems most new movies are about showing off CGI, or merely being a poorly executed remake of an older movie (or subject matter that doesn't interest me, but that is outside this post).

For example, I grew up on reruns of Speed Racer. When the movie came out, the trailers communicated it was all about the special effects - so I've not seen the movie. A friend went to see it, and confirmed my suspicions.
The Haunting is another example. The remake was all about the special effects. The only "special effect" in the original was a couple guys pushing on a door with a piece of wood - plus I'd only seen it on late night TV and VHS... yet I liked it better, because it was about the story.

I did see one Harry Potter movie at the theatre, and I did like it (plot-wise). However, it was captured on digital, so there were artifacts throughout the movie - and they really annoyed me. The artifacts were of the kind that film surpassed by the 1940s (if not earlier); I was watching a modern movie with problems that film resolved before my parents were born. Kind of sad.

I wouldn't mind so much if the movies were otherwise good.

 

[MattKing]

Not too long ago I saw Philomena in the theatres.

The movie was excellent. It was shot digitally on "Red" technology.

The digital technology did an excellent job of capturing lots of drearily lit scenes - which was entirely appropriate for the movie.

It would be interesting to see how a film cinematographer would have dealt with the situation.

Most importantly though, it was a well done, interesting movie with superb acting.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

The last motion picture I saw was Intersteller. Saw it at the Boeing IMAX theater at the Pacific Science Center in Seattle, Washington. A true full-on film work-of-art. Shot on film. Projected on film. Appreciated on film.

There is no comparison to the IMAX 70mm 15-perf per frame ~18K resolution format. None. Brilliantly projected onto a six-story screen the colors and resolution take your breath away. When coupled with a screenplay that treats gravitational time-dilation as matter-of-factly as morning breakfast, it was an intellectually marvelous experience.*

If you walk around to the back side, the IMAX theater has a large public picture window into the projection room. You can watch the ~600-pound horizontal platter of 70mm film feed through the computerized projector. It's an amazing sight in itself.

We were told to be in our seats directly, as there were no lead-in previews or other commercials before the film started. This was because the film itself was planned and built directly around the IMAX format from the beginning. The full running time takes every last wind around that enormous platter.

I won't pay to see digital theater movies. Ever. I can get those cheap, cheap, cheap from Netflix. And watch 'em in the basement with the dog, if I'm interested. The vast majority of the time, I'm not.

Honestly? My life is not really dominated by things jumping out into my face. Somebody needs to clue Hollywood in to that...

Ken

* I kept having to suddenly think "Wait a minute! What exactly did I just see?" Then think it through for a moment, only to realize that hey, I think that's actually correct! Or pretty darned close.

For readers who have seen the film, remember the line "This all probably happened only about an hour ago?" Had to momentarily work the frames of reference backwards in my head until I got that. So damned cool!

 

[StoneNYC]

The last motion picture I saw was Intersteller. Saw it at the Boeing IMAX theater at the Pacific Science Center in Seattle, Washington. A true full-on film work-of-art. Shot on film. Projected on film. Appreciated on film.

There is no comparison to the IMAX 70mm 15-perf per frame ~18K resolution format. None. Brilliantly projected onto a six-story screen the colors and resolution take your breath away. When coupled with a screenplay that treats gravitational time-dilation as matter-of-factly as morning breakfast, it was an intellectually marvelous experience.*

If you walk around to the back side, the IMAX theater has a large public picture window into the projection room. You can watch the ~600-pound horizontal platter of 70mm film feed through the computerized projector. It's an amazing sight in itself.

We were told to be in our seats directly, as there were no lead-in previews or other commercials before the film started. This was because the film itself was planned and built directly around the IMAX format from the beginning. The full running time takes every last wind around that enormous platter.

I won't pay to see digital theater movies. Ever. I can get those cheap, cheap, cheap from Netflix. And watch 'em in the basement with the dog, if I'm interested. The vast majority of the time, I'm not.

Honestly? My life is not really dominated by things jumping out into my face. Somebody needs to clue Hollywood in to that...

Ken

* I kept having to suddenly think "Wait a minute! What exactly did I just see?" Then think it through for a moment, only to realize that hey, I think that's actually correct! Or pretty darned close.

For readers who have seen the film, remember the line "This all probably happened only about an hour ago?" Had to momentarily work the frames of reference backwards in my head until I got that. So damned cool!

Well now I have to see it in IMAX...

 

[Prest_400]

The last motion picture I saw was Intersteller. Saw it at the Boeing IMAX theater at the Pacific Science Center in Seattle, Washington. A true full-on film work-of-art. Shot on film. Projected on film. Appreciated on film.

There is no comparison to the IMAX 70mm 15-perf per frame ~18K resolution format. None. Brilliantly projected onto a six-story screen the colors and resolution take your breath away. When coupled with a screenplay that treats gravitational time-dilation as matter-of-factly as morning breakfast, it was an intellectually marvelous experience.*

If you walk around to the back side, the IMAX theater has a large public picture window into the projection room. You can watch the ~600-pound horizontal platter of 70mm film feed through the computerized projector. It's an amazing sight in itself.

We were told to be in our seats directly, as there were no lead-in previews or other commercials before the film started. This was because the film itself was planned and built directly around the IMAX format from the beginning. The full running time takes every last wind around that enormous platter.

I won't pay to see digital theater movies. Ever. I can get those cheap, cheap, cheap from Netflix. And watch 'em in the basement with the dog, if I'm interested. The vast majority of the time, I'm not.

Honestly? My life is not really dominated by things jumping out into my face. Somebody needs to clue Hollywood in to that...

Ken

* I kept having to suddenly think "Wait a minute! What exactly did I just see?" Then think it through for a moment, only to realize that hey, I think that's actually correct! Or pretty darned close.

For readers who have seen the film, remember the line "This all probably happened only about an hour ago?" Had to momentarily work the frames of reference backwards in my head until I got that. So damned cool!

It was the last movie I saw at the theater, but projected digitally.
Sadly, once theaters gradually converted together with other factors (our government increased VAT for cultural activities), their prices increased quite a bit. That and something more, and you see a declining attendance of moviegoers.
They do special days and screenings with cheaper prices, and I go every once in a while with some friends. Otherwise the theaters aren't something I'm too excited about. It's like glorified streaming video.
If it is staying with some friends, it's better to do another activity as the attention is robbed by the movie.

If/when I stay on another country for some time and am able to visit a 70mm or IMAX theater I will try to watch a movie there.

 

[Xmas]

TVs killed cinemas eg in '50s in suburbia there was a cine theatre 100 yards from front door, titles changed twice a week. The next nearest 400 yards. In '60s they converted to shops.

In large towns the cine theatres had been next to one another. All the live theatres went to wall or dualled.

In '30s lots of houses plots were converted to cine theatres as talkies took over. Families went to see movies several times a week. Only some people had radios.

Nothing is static.