The end of film? First studio stops distributing celluloid

[Arctic amateur]

But a smaller market might still have limited run only, wouldnt it? Unless the money mattered or audience mattered?

I'm sorry, I don't understand.

 

[Truzi]

There seems to be some social pressure to be among the first ones to see popular movies. When movie theaters couldn't deliver (remember Star Wars I?), people turned to file sharing systems and watched to movie on their computers, and of course never bothered rewatching it in the movie theater.

I remember watching Star Wars I at the theatre - I never bothered rewatching it when it hit TV. Not only did the digital effects turn me off (come on, at the time a digital yoda _should not_ have been less convincing than an old muppet), but the story line was poorly executed, quite unlike the original three movies.

At the same time, digital technology has allowed film makers to produce movies on a shoestring budget. No more buying film stock, processing and expensive editing systems. In some respects, technology is the great equalizer.

In my opinion, it equalizes by bringing low-budget or amateur productions up a bit, and bringing well-done productions down a lot. There is no reason to use the technology poorly, but that seems to happen more often, as ease and cost take precedent. Throw in digital SFX for the sake of it (gratuitous) and the whole experience lessens.

I remember my parents having me watch South Pacific on TV when I was a child. If it were done again today, it would focus more on effects to overshadow the plot. Oh wait... Titanic and Titanic II (I mean Pearl Harbor)

 

[StoneNYC]

I prefer those imperfections over pixelation, combing, and whatnot. Both have viewing "artifacts," and I feel film does better in general, despite the artifacts. Perhaps because it's what I grew up with, or perhaps because I feel a switch to "new" technology should not mean re-embracing problems similar to what had been largely surmounted in the old medium. For example, listening to satellite radio in my mothers minivan is not unlike listening to AM when driving under bridges, trees, or around large buildings.
Another example is the local news stations doing quick interviews on-location. The "trained" digital camera operators consistently show that anyone can do their job. Contrast changes if the interviewee simply turns their head a bit, making the whole scene constantly change like some bad avant-garde attempt. With a film camera, even if the exposure is bad, at least it's consistently bad, without inducing seizures. I feel analog video-tape is better in this respect.

That said, I've seen very few movies at the theatre in the past 10 years, and watched very few of them when they made it to DVD or TV. I would say I watch fewer movies than my parents and grandparents did at a similar age. Movies have not been overshadowed by DVD/blueray, video games, or the WWW in my case. Movies no longer appeal as a quality entertainment experience for me. Hollywood no longer puts much effort into something I feel is worth my time. It cannot even do yet another version of some literary classic without focusing on effects and forgoing the original storyline except for character names.

Go see "12 year slave" it's put now, and I guarantee it will be worth the money.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

True. I hope that movie goers want good story and not a bad flick with a bunch of glitzy CG. The a look at the old Dr. Who TV shows. Low production, but great writing. Cinema just like any great art should share our human experiences and hopefully transformative.

 

[Alan Klein]

One of my favorite memories from my life was from back in the early 90's when I lived in Paris. I was dating a girl who loved movies, especially old ones. I must have visited nearly every little theater in the city. Some of them had only a couple dozen seats at most. It was almost like seeing a private viewing in your house. I assume most of them are gone by now. It was a wonderful experience though.

Which experience was wonderful? The movies or the French girl?

 

[StoneNYC]

True. I hope that movie goers want good story and not a bad flick with a bunch of glitzy CG. The a look at the old Dr. Who TV shows. Low production, but great writing. Cinema just like any great art should share our human experiences and hopefully transformative.

The new Dr Who isn't exactly "high production" haha but they do use some CGI but lots of the old style set design too.

Either way I doubt it's shot on film, lol maybe it was on tape at some point but not anymore.

 

[Dr Croubie]

OK, so here's an interesting observation, from Setlife Magazine.
Specifically, the images Dead Link Removed, Dead Link Removed, and Dead Link Removed.
In short:
Of 5 'best director' nominations: 2 used film, 2 used film + digital, 1 used digital. All used film prints.
Of 5 'cinematography' nominations: 2 film, 1 film + digi, 2 digi. 4 film prints (I presume 'D-Cinema' for the last column (which apparently should read The Grandmaster) means digital distribution, even though it was all film negs?)
Of 8 'best picture' nominations: 2 film, 2 film + digi, 4 digi. 6 film prints, 2 I presume digital (DCP?).

Of all of them, I have 0 interest in seeing any of them.

 

[AgX]

This does not say anything about the volume of film production needed. Be it camera- or print-film.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Aside from the beauty of film prints and formats like 70mm IMAX that are only available in very few cities today, the danger for us as film photographers, I think, is the decline in demand for film base, which is used for release prints. If that dries up, there's less reason to manufacture it.

Hard drives are so much cheaper to ship than stacks of 35mm reels (from Europe to the US the round trip cost can be around $150 for digital, $1600 film for a typical feature in 35mm) that the shift to digital offers the possibility of more variety of movies available in more markets, which is a good thing, if it happens.

Digital cinema projection still isn't foolproof. If you have a technical problem with digital, you may lose the sound, the subtitles, etc., and there's nothing to do but send the audience home with a refund, which I've seen happen at the most sophisticated New York venues. If the film breaks, you can splice it.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Anybody boiling their movie experience down to what medium the film was shot on and projected with are artfully missing the point of making films in the first place.

Either a film is good or its not. No different from a photograph, really. Did you enjoy or get something significant out of watching the end result? That is the only question worth asking.

I don't go to the movie theaters very often, mostly because there are so many terrible films out there. But there are the rare exceptions, and I really don't care whether it's digital or shot/printed on film stock or not.

 

[StoneNYC]

Aside from the beauty of film prints and formats like 70mm IMAX that are only available in very few cities today, the danger for us as film photographers, I think, is the decline in demand for film base, which is used for release prints. If that dries up, there's less reason to manufacture it.

Hard drives are so much cheaper to ship than stacks of 35mm reels (from Europe to the US the round trip cost can be around $150 for digital, $1600 film for a typical feature in 35mm) that the shift to digital offers the possibility of more variety of movies available in more markets, which is a good thing, if it happens.

Digital cinema projection still isn't foolproof. If you have a technical problem with digital, you may lose the sound, the subtitles, etc., and there's nothing to do but send the audience home with a refund, which I've seen happen at the most sophisticated New York venues. If the film breaks, you can splice it.

Ship??! Hah! They are now just downloading them to the projector!

 

[Truzi]

I think digital will do for movies what cable did for TV. There are just as many good shows on TV as there were pre-cable, but with the exponential growth of crap, it's so difficult to find them it's not worth the bother.

 

[Photo Engineer]

All this furor in spite of Sony buying a gazillion dollars worth of ECN and ECP as stock for at least 5 years or more. This gave Kodak quite a boost.

PE

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Ship??! Hah! They are now just downloading them to the projector!

In theory, but it's not entirely there yet. The last couple of years dealing with films coming from Europe to screen in New York with the institution I just left, we're still shipping hard drives for DCP and the films have to be uploaded from the drive to the theater's network. The theater gets a code to activate the film for a limited period, and the drive can be shipped on to the next venue. Given the upload/download cost of that much data and network speed available for what theaters can afford in many markets, shipping may actually still be cheaper at this point.

 

[StoneNYC]

In theory, but it's not entirely there yet. The last couple of years dealing with films coming from Europe to screen in New York with the institution I just left, we're still shipping hard drives for DCP and the films have to be uploaded from the drive to the theater's network. The theater gets a code to activate the film for a limited period, and the drive can be shipped on to the next venue. Given the upload/download cost of that much data and network speed available for what theaters can afford in many markets, shipping may actually still be cheaper at this point.

Ahh, good point

 

[StoneNYC]

All this furor in spite of Sony buying a gazillion dollars worth of ECN and ECP as stock for at least 5 years or more. This gave Kodak quite a boost.

PE

Gazillion?

That's good news, and I thought I was rich with 150 feet of 500T and 150 feet of 250D... Lol

 

[AgX]

Aside from the beauty of film prints and formats like 70mm IMAX that are only available in very few cities today, the danger for us as film photographers, I think, is the decline in demand for film base, which is used for release prints. If that dries up, there's less reason to manufacture it.

I do not see this. The relationship between all types of film-making is stronger than any relationship between base-making and film-making

 

[Rudeofus]

Anybody boiling their movie experience down to what medium the film was shot on and projected with are artfully missing the point of making films in the first place.

Either a film is good or its not. No different from a photograph, really. Did you enjoy or get something significant out of watching the end result? That is the only question worth asking.

If you look at "There Will Be Blood", and compare it to "Skyfall", you will see the difference immediately. Forget about the movie's plots and just look at what you see on the screen: "Skyfall" shows that digital is really grain/noise free at high ISO, but the night scenes look plasticky and artificial, with gaudy colors and weird looking contrast. The color palette of "There Will Be Blood", on the other side, made me buy a dozen rolls of Portra right away because I liked it so much. I know the movie wasn't shot on Portra but the colors are very similar.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I do not see this. The relationship between all types of film-making is stronger than any relationship between base-making and film-making

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.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

If you look at "There Will Be Blood", and compare it to "Skyfall", you will see the difference immediately. Forget about the movie's plots and just look at what you see on the screen: "Skyfall" shows that digital is really grain/noise free at high ISO, but the night scenes look plasticky and artificial, with gaudy colors and weird looking contrast. The color palette of "There Will Be Blood", on the other side, made me buy a dozen rolls of Portra right away because I liked it so much. I know the movie wasn't shot on Portra but the colors are very similar.

I KNOW that you can see a difference. What I am challenging with my statement has a lot more to do with the total movie going experience. If the digital capture bothers you so much, then why are you in the cinema in the first place? To view the wonders of film frames captured on 35mm stock, or are you there to have an experience of emotions, laughter, tears, disgust, wonder, amazement, and thought provocation? Like I said, artfully missing the point.

 

[Rudeofus]

What I am challenging with my statement has a lot more to do with the total movie going experience. If the digital capture bothers you so much, then why are you in the cinema in the first place? To view the wonders of film frames captured on 35mm stock, or are you there to have an experience of emotions, laughter, tears, disgust, wonder, amazement, and thought provocation? Like I said, artfully missing the point.

In my opinion the colors used in a movie display have great impact on how I emotionally respond to that movie, so they are of essential importance to the whole movie watching experience. If that aspect is lacking in finesse (as exemplified by "Skyfall", and probably many others), there is one less advantage of movie theater screen over viewing an MPEG4 on my laptop, which means one less reason to go to a movie theater.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I do agree that colors mean a lot to the mood, but have not yet witnessed a big enough difference in the presentation that it's made a difference in how I appreciate a movie. I'm pretty sure that movie makers are intimately aware of the psychological effect of color, so I think what you witness personally is a matter of taste. I'm certain that in a production such as Skyfall, cinematographers, producers, and directors have discussed how colors need to be presented.

I'm sorry that digital is making such a big difference for you, and I hope that you can find ways to enjoy it again.

 

[Ross Chambers]

I've seen some of those splices, fortunately not during the show. One was at a check screening of a print for the Australian premiere of "The Piano" and it was my humble duty to make sure everything was ship shape. I was less than amused to see the leading lady jump several metres across the set because the projectionist had "fixed" some damage in the print by ripping several feet out and resplicing.

It took some hours and God's blessing to find an undamaged print in Australia in the couple of hours before the show. I would have preferred a total digital breakdown rather than some cackhanded dopey projectionist "helping" us out. Furthermore the director, Jane Campion, would be likely to have my intestines for garters had this proceeded.

 

[Rudeofus]

I do agree that colors mean a lot to the mood, but have not yet witnessed a big enough difference in the presentation that it's made a difference in how I appreciate a movie. I'm pretty sure that movie makers are intimately aware of the psychological effect of color, so I think what you witness personally is a matter of taste. I'm certain that in a production such as Skyfall, cinematographers, producers, and directors have discussed how colors need to be presented.

The producers of "Skyfall" were probably extremely proud of all the high-ISO stunts they could pull with their new capture medium and wanted to show off these new capabilities at their best. Excitement about a new medium does not create interesting pictures, though. Maybe we will see a phase where this excitement fades out and directors start making decent looking movies again.

I've seen some of those splices, fortunately not during the show. One was at a check screening of a print for the Australian premiere of "The Piano" and it was my humble duty to make sure everything was ship shape. I was less than amused to see the leading lady jump several metres across the set because the projectionist had "fixed" some damage in the print by ripping several feet out and resplicing.

It took some hours and God's blessing to find an undamaged print in Australia in the couple of hours before the show. I would have preferred a total digital breakdown rather than some cackhanded dopey projectionist "helping" us out. Furthermore the director, Jane Campion, would be likely to have my intestines for garters had this proceeded.

From what I have seen, directors must be pretty mellow now. When we saw "Wallstreet II" in digital projection (in a big movie theater, mind you), several scenes, especially where they panned across skylines, had interlacing artifacts that were so bad that I couldn't believe people would put up with this. Of course they could have fixed that by pushing the right buttons on their projector, but they didn't bother. Amateur youtube clips have better quality for free than what we were charged 10 Euros each to watch.

Recording a movie on film does not automagically make a good movie or suitable color palette, but my impression is that those, who chose the non-standard option to record a movie, are those who will go the extra mile for quality. Likewise, if movie theaters chose digital projection because it allows them to project movies with less qualified people, that's what you get.

 

[lxdude]

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.

You said it, man! Exactly my thinking. And as a bonus, no more having to put up with other people's chatter and their cell phones going off.