The facts of film production

Photo Engineer · Nov 19, 2007

Jana;

You make very good points.

I would like to point out that a lot of EFKE film is being sold regardless of their limited production facilty, but that was just one example of the low end film producers. There are others in Russia and China who produce inexpensive but lower quality film at cut rate prices. So, I was just using this as an example.

Motion picture supports Kodak sales, and does the same for Filmotec as you point out. Fuji analog sales are also greatly directed towards motion picture film even though they have a much smaller portion of the market than Kodak. But, you missed my point, also made elsewhere by someone else - perhaps you yourself.

The statement was tongue in cheek because motion picture is healthy. The cost of installing a digital projector is huge, and will remain huge for years to come. Therefore, as long as mechanical / analog projectors predominate, there will be a market for film, so the meaning of my statement was the opposite of what you took it to be. I was predicting a long life for film products due to the suspected longevity of motion picture film.

As for film types, E6 currently represents a tiny fraction of the total color film market. Those disposable cameras are all negative film cameras. E6 is vanishing rapidly from the landscape. So, I made that prediction.

PE

JanaM · Nov 19, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
Jana;

You make very good points.

I would like to point out that a lot of EFKE film is being sold regardless of their limited production facilty, but that was just one example of the low end film producers. There are others in Russia and China who produce inexpensive but lower quality film at cut rate prices. So, I was just using this as an example.

Hi Ron,

1. The sales volume of Efke is very very low compared to Ilford. Not a serious competition for them. Efke is serving a different market, their film users like the 'old-fashioned' look of these films.
2. In Russia there is only one film producer left, Tasma, and as far as I know they are only serving the russian market and not exporting their films, at least not at western europe. Can you buy Tasma films in the US?
But they have designed a new 100 ASA emulsion in 2002.
Slavich is producing papers (and X-Ray films? I'm not sure).
3. China: Lucky stopped exporting their films to europe some time ago. They have made some severe marketing mistakes at least in europe. Now they are out of the game here.
ERA, Shanghai: I don't know, some said they are still producing, others stated they have stopped production.

So, the competition in the low cost film area is not so intensive. But the competition for Ilford from Kodak, Fuji and Maco/Rollei in the high quality field is definitely a great challenge.

Photo Engineer said:
....I was predicting a long life for film products due to the suspected longevity of motion picture film.

Nice, so we have both the same opinion .

Photo Engineer said:
As for film types, E6 currently represents a tiny fraction of the total color film market. Those disposable cameras are all negative film cameras. E6 is vanishing rapidly from the landscape. So, I made that prediction.

PE

But color reversal film is also used in the movie film industry. AFAIK at the sets negative film is primarily used, but the copies for the cinemas are reversal films.
And here we can see the beginning of a little trend by the photographers: Even the 'digievangelists' admit that beamer projection and monitors are crap compared with slide projection and slide viewing with a loupe on a light table.
Some are returning to slides.

Best regards,
Jana

PHOTOTONE · Nov 19, 2007

JanaM said:
But color reversal film is also used in the movie film industry. AFAIK at the sets negative film is primarily used, but the copies for the cinemas are reversal films.

Best regards,
Jana

The "copies" for release prints to theaters are absolutely NOT reversal film. A composite color negative is contact printed at high speed to Color Positive release print stock, which is a positive print made from a color negative. Like a color still print made from a color still camera negative, except the emulsion is coated on film base.. Theaters using film prints do not help the case for E-6 at all, sorry.

The only reversal film used for movies, is the Ektachrome available for Super8 and 16mm cameras for amateur shooting, and this is so the photographer can project the same film he exposed in his camera without further expense other than processing.

Independent cinematographers who shoot 16 and Super16 shoot color negative, which again is printed on a Positive color print stock designed to make a positive print from a color negative. No reversal at all.

srs5694 · Nov 19, 2007

JanaM said:
Furthermore it is very likely that color movie film will stay for many years, because digital projection in cinemas is extremely expensive, and the cinema owners can't get any return on investment on their digital projectors, because they can't get more visitors by changing the way of projection.

Your point is excellent and I don't mean to challenge it too strongly; however, I wonder about the costs of replacing film projectors with analog projectors vs. the costs of replacing film projectors with new film projectors. Sooner or later the film projectors that are installed in most theaters will wear out. Depending on the costs involved, cinemas might just jump to digital when that happens, which would result in a slow transition to digital projection. Does anybody know what the average lifetime of cinema projectors is?

For most of the cinema owners it is impossible to make such high investments. Therefore they say the film release firms have to pay for this, but the release firms say no, the cinemas have to pay.

I read that the same was true in the US, but this was a few years ago.

And now look at India ("Bollywood" is much more film consuming than Hollywood), China, Asia in general, Latin America, Africa. It is very likeliy that movie film with its low costs will be state of the art in these areas for many many years.

Your argument is good for the US and Europe, and even better for developing countries; I can't imagine many cinemas in poorer areas shelling out for new digital projection equipment.

OTOH, if people bypass cinemas and buy DVDs instead, that could change the equation markedly. But then, people have been predicting the demise of cinemas since TV was invented, but they somehow manage to survive. I wouldn't count them out just yet.

I don't think that slide films will vanish, because it is a unique medium. It is impossible to achieve the strongholds and characterics of slide films with digital technology.

You could make the same claim about Kodachrome, but many posters on this forum have already written Kodachrome obituaries.

In Russia there is only one film producer left, Tasma, and as far as I know they are only serving the russian market and not exporting their films, at least not at western europe. Can you buy Tasma films in the US?

Not as far as I know. There was a British company (Retrophotographic, I think) that used to list it on their Web site, but it wasn't there the last time I checked. Of course, in principle Tasma could see greater distribution in the future. This might happen if another film company or two folds, opening more gaps in the marketplace.

Slavich is producing papers (and X-Ray films? I'm not sure).

Slavich papers are available from Freestyle in the US. I bought some a few weeks ago just to check out the "silk" surface on one product, which was common in the 1970s but has been quite rare since then.

srs5694 · Nov 19, 2007

PHOTOTONE said:
The "copies" for release prints to theaters are absolutely NOT reversal film. A composite color negative is contact printed at high speed to Color Positive release print stock, which is a positive print made from a color negative.

I'm just curious about how many steps are involved here. It seems risky to me to be making hundreds or thousands of copies from the original negative film that went through the cameras on the sets. Do they make some sort of copy negative from which the distribution prints are made, or are they really really careful with the original negatives? Or do they perhaps now do some of this digitally, scanning the original and then making release prints from the scans, much like the prints anybody can get from a Fuji Frontier minilab?

Photo Engineer · Nov 19, 2007

The original image(s) on a film master may consist of up to 14 separate takes which includes all corrections and SFX. They are all printed in register onto a print film and an intermediate composite negative is produced which contains the 14 images. These are then printed onto ECP for theatrical projection. Thus there are several orignal copies that are preserved.

PE

Photo Engineer · Nov 19, 2007

I can see that from the answers, there are several 'economy' film and paper producers that are selling nitch products. Others are ignoring nitches even though they can produce products for them.

Whatever the reason, the product count is decreasing and I cannot disagree with anything anyone has said here. There is not enough information and what we have conflicts in some cases. So, we cannot make a single definitive statement.

PE

Sal Santamaura · Nov 19, 2007

aldevo said:
...I think Ilford's biggest worry right now is their lease of their production facilities and the gang-busters real estate appreciation in the UK that makes that lease a costly proposition. Yes, that's speculation on my part, but if I were a betting man...

There are 18 years left on that lease, and Kentmere (which Harman just purchased) owns its production facilities. I'm not interested in betting, but do feel good about Ilford's chances to methodically plan for any real estate outcome in 2025.

roteague · Nov 19, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
How about operation IVY Bob. I saw the classified films of that one! WOW!

PE

I never saw the film, but I saw the voltage and rise time charts. Impressive.

roteague · Nov 19, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
As for film types, E6 currently represents a tiny fraction of the total color film market. Those disposable cameras are all negative film cameras. E6 is vanishing rapidly from the landscape. So, I made that prediction.

PE

That is the point that I think many landscape photographers are worried about. Very few people use E6, and even if I were able to stockpile hundreds of rolls, could I actually get them processed somewhere? I feel fairly secure for the near future with Fuji Velvia, but will that last 20 years (until I'm too old to care)?

Photo Engineer · Nov 19, 2007

Bob;

The problem will be to find a place to process the film. Processing of E6 is a rapidly vanishing service.

PE

roteague · Nov 19, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
Bob;

The problem will be to find a place to process the film. Processing of E6 is a rapidly vanishing service.

PE

That is the $100 question. Even my preferred lab has cut back to twice a week. I wonder when we will see something like Dwayne's for E6. I suspect that LF (and 120) E6 will last MUCH longer than 35mm E6.

JanaM · Nov 19, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
Bob;

The problem will be to find a place to process the film. Processing of E6 is a rapidly vanishing service.

PE

Is this the case in the US? Here in Germany we have lots of options: Great mass laboratories which are serving nationwide (CEWE, allcop and Fuji Eurocolor), many professional labs serving nationwide, regional professional labs. In the town I live there are three professional labs with E6 service.

But I think slides were always more popular in Germany than in other countries. We have still some manufacturers of slide projectors. And slide shows of journeys to exotic countries in front of a big audience are quite popular here. I've recently read that such slide shows (audiovision) are unknown in Japan.

Other countries, other preferences....

Best regards,
Jana

roteague · Nov 19, 2007

JanaM said:
Is this the case in the US? Here in Germany we have lots of options: Great mass laboratories which are serving nationwide (CEWE, allcop and Fuji Eurocolor), many professional labs serving nationwide, regional professional labs. In the town I live there are three professional labs with E6 service.

But I think slides were always more popular in Germany than in other countries. We have still some manufacturers of slide projectors. And slide shows of journeys to exotic countries in front of a big audience are quite popular here. I've recently read that such slide shows (audiovision) are unknown in Japan.

Other countries, other preferences....

Best regards,
Jana

Yes, that is what we were discussing. Film seems to be much more popular outside the US, mostly in Europe. Australia and New Zealand seem much worse than the US in regards to the availability of film and processing.

PHOTOTONE · Nov 19, 2007

srs5694 said:
Your point is excellent and I don't mean to challenge it too strongly; however, I wonder about the costs of replacing film projectors with analog projectors vs. the costs of replacing film projectors with new film projectors. Sooner or later the film projectors that are installed in most theaters will wear out. Depending on the costs involved, cinemas might just jump to digital when that happens, which would result in a slow transition to digital projection. Does anybody know what the average lifetime of cinema projectors is?

You'd be amazed at how long a Cinema projector can last with only minimal service. I owned a small-town movie theatre in the 1980's. The projectors had been installed as used units, in the late 1940's, and they still worked like new. Of course parts that wear were replaced over the years, this primarily was sproket wheels that pull the film thru the mechanism. There is an abundance of used equipment around, several companies world wide are still making new 35mm theatre projectors, and spare parts are still being made and are available for machines up to 80 years old. Most modern (last 40 years) projectors have all the gears running in a recirculating oil bath, or they use toothed belt drives. Everything is very heavy and robust, designed for continuous operation day in and day out for decades. I would say the lifetime of a projector is longer than your lifetime. The reason such elderly equipment can still be used, is that the 35mm film standard was arrived at early in the 20th century (by 1901 about), and is the same today, with only minor modifications to allow for a sound track starting in about 1927. So you can take a projector from 1933 (for example) and with proper lenses project a wide-screen film made today. The sound can be any media you want, as the sound head is a separate mechanism and the projector sits atop it, and is coupled to it via gears.

PHOTOTONE · Nov 19, 2007

roteague said:
That is the point that I think many landscape photographers are worried about. Very few people use E6, and even if I were able to stockpile hundreds of rolls, could I actually get them processed somewhere? I feel fairly secure for the near future with Fuji Velvia, but will that last 20 years (until I'm too old to care)?

I use tons of E-6 professionally in 4x5, and process it myself. If you feel confident with Fuji Velvia, well....it is an E-6 film, and processes in the standard E-6 process. With 2 manufacturers still making E-6 emulsions, the outlook is not hopeless.

PHOTOTONE · Nov 19, 2007

srs5694 said:
I'm just curious about how many steps are involved here. It seems risky to me to be making hundreds or thousands of copies from the original negative film that went through the cameras on the sets. Do they make some sort of copy negative from which the distribution prints are made, or are they really really careful with the original negatives? Or do they perhaps now do some of this digitally, scanning the original and then making release prints from the scans, much like the prints anybody can get from a Fuji Frontier minilab?

In todays production environment, all camera original film is scanned, and all the editing, composting, special effects, titles, etc., are added while the film is in the digital domain, then the final complete film is output back to film via a film recorder. This makes a printing negative that perserves all the qualities of the original. As many printing negatives as needed can be made, to run multiple printing lines for high-volume releases.

In the past, before digital technology, of course there were several intermediary steps between the original camera negative and the final print, but the final print was (just as today) contact printed from a production negative made specifically for this purpose, camera negative is NEVER used to make release prints. Kodak, Fuji and Agfa all made, or still make, special low contrast intermediate films designed for this "intermediate" stage of film, which retain highlight and shadow detail when printed to the final release print.

As an example of volume, a release print of an average length movie is 9000 ft long, divided up onto several 2000ft reels. Some films with nationwide release may have up to 500 prints made (or more) so they can open nationwide on the same day at all key theatres. This is a considerable amount of film stock being used, considering that there are hundreds of films released worldwide every year.

roteague · Nov 19, 2007

PHOTOTONE said:
I use tons of E-6 professionally in 4x5, and process it myself. If you feel confident with Fuji Velvia, well....it is an E-6 film, and processes in the standard E-6 process. With 2 manufacturers still making E-6 emulsions, the outlook is not hopeless.

I used to do my own E6, back when I had a Jobo processor. I still have some of the equipment, but no longer own a processor. The problem is the chemicals - I've checked into it, and it doesn't look like it will happen as long as I live in Hawaii.

JBrunner · Nov 19, 2007

PHOTOTONE said:
In todays production environment, all camera original film is scanned, and all the editing, composting, special effects, titles, etc., are added while the film is in the digital domain, then the final complete film is output back to film via a film recorder.

Actually, digital intermediary isn't universally used across the board (yet). A whole lot of films have the camera neg telecined and then do the editing, etc on a non linear editing system. After that the negatives are conformed to match the decisions made in the electronic edit. (I've left out a whole bunch of steps)

A pure digital intermediary process is still very expensive, even by movie standards, so while films with lots of special effects benefit greatly, the cost/benefit isn't so good for a more "normal" movie, or one with a less than blockbuster budget.

Photo Engineer · Nov 19, 2007

This is the 14 or so intermediates I mentioned earlier. That is how many ILM people used to merge the actors with the SFX including digital SFX. They came to Kodak to illustrate some curve shape adjustments in the various films that have been mentioned here.

We, as engineers, learned from them what they needed and our next iteration of ECN and ECP were revised in aim curve shape to meet their needs for SFX and digital.

They played some in slow motion to show us the 'errors' that they made and that were introduced by less than optimum film. It was quite interesting. It was fun as well to see the actors, the individual models, the life size sets and the digital parts of several SF movies blended in slow motion, coming together frame by frame by frame.

We got to watch the Genesis machine in the Wrath of Kahn in slow motion, and watch the Millenium Falcon approach the Death Star in about 14 shots with the actors, the ship set, the models, and the composite. One of the engineers from ILM commented on how hard it was sometimes to get the actors to just point in one direction when all they saw was green screen.

In any event, this is a far cry from the old reel editors we used in the 60s at the cape. Everything was manual and on film then.

PE

Neanderman · Nov 21, 2007

sun of sand said:
As for Azo I hear it lasts an incredibly long time. Perhaps 40 years with decent results?

Why can't Kodak just make one last Huge run on products that last forever while they still have the knowledge and materials to produce it? I know that takes storage space and money to to keep storage cool but Kodak ain't poor.

Taxes. Corporations have to pay taxes on inventory. This is why you find books 'remaindered' at dirt cheap prices -- it is cheaper to see the inventory off at a loss than it is to pay the taxes to keep them in inventory.

Ed

milkplus-mesto · Mar 22, 2008

It may be a naive suggestion, but say kodak and other brands all had a look in on some central film producer, the technologies could be licensed to this one body, and then they could keep the machinery maintenance costs low by using the same machines to produce runs of all of their film - and it could therefore pass a saving on to the customer - hell, it could even be run as a charity, supported through donations by the photographers as well as revenue from the films - with all of the companies involved being able to carry on production of their films.

Photo Engineer · Mar 22, 2008

And who would it be? It would mean sharing some very confidential manufacturing secrets to the central producer. Kodak, Fuji and Ilford would not like that. It is like asking the US and Russia to have their military planes made by a common company.

And, where does the money come from to build this facility? Kodak does not do things the way Agfa did or Ilford does. So, the equipment would have to be multi-capable and that would have to be built from scratch.

PE

marsbars · Apr 9, 2008

It is just a sad fact of progress I fear. But the market is still there, just it has changed dramatically. Only time will tell how things will end up. I am no expert on any of this market analysis but I think that film has been rather spoiled in the past. Looking at all the choices in the past prior to the digital boom. But that wasn't always the norm was it? Didn't the old timers of past only have a few films to choose from? It didn't limit the creative side of things though. It just made one learn to use what was available. I know that people have their favorites and hate to see them go. But there are a lot of good emulsions out there that can be used very creatively. If film is to go on for a good while, I think that we as film users will have to adapt to the diminishing choices and use what is here now. If we all cry and lament the discontinuation of our old favorites and are inflexible to change then film will die. I would rather only have a few choices in B&W, E6, and C41 than none at all. The film companies will produce film so long as the market is there. It may come down to less choices and less different brands. Continuing to use film, instead of jumping on the digital wagon, will keep it going for a long time to come.
However that is just how I see things from my armchair. I agree with a previous poster about getting a friend into film. I have preached it to many of my friends and family and though the conversion is slow there have been converts. Film equipment is cheap, so going back is easy. Of the few converts I have made they use the digital for the P&S stuff, but have found that they like the look of a good 8x10 on the wall shot on traditional silver. They might only shoot a couple of rolls a month, but they are using. And getting hooked on the feeling.
My wife uses the digital for pics of the kids and snapshots, yet she has yet to ever have one printed. All of the prints come form my old reliable film cameras. Even though she knows that a certain subject would look nice with her digital camera she more than often asks me to shoot it and have it printed on traditional papers.
Each format has its place.
Just my penny in the pot.

Photo Engineer · Apr 9, 2008

Old timers had pages of film types available to them as well as pages of papers and surfaces available. All of these were available in various sizes and formats.

Today, we are limited to roughly 3 major sizes and a few minor sizes of paper and film and a lot fewer product lines.

PE

The facts of film production

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency