This guy thinks film is dead

[jacksond]

DSLR Knowledge

I have a Nikon D700 = four books in addition to the instruction manual and Still have trouble doing other than aperture or speed priority. No idea how to set the four or so custom programs. It's refreshing to pick up my Leica M6 or M3 and basically just point them at the subject using a bit of B/W guesswork with 400 film.

 

[tomtraubert]

Ditto here, jacksond, only I have a D90. I'm getting better at using it, but still love nothing better than pulling out my FE2 every now and then (it usually takes a while for me to realise that I actually have to focus the lens, got a bit lazy with that AF-thingy). As for the topic, I have no doubts that (affordable) film photography will be around for as long as I have left... After that, it's for the younger folks to think about. I was just measuring up my bathroom moments ago, setting it up for the "darkroom" (I'll talk to my wife later about that - I always leave the more difficult work for later). Reading this thread, I realised that I don't care so much for the actual camera (whether it's film or dijital), as much as I miss the actual prints. Soon, at least for B&W, I won't be having to miss them any more.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Yes, that's the way it is. I am seeing more people coming to me (of all people!) with their Nikons (the D700 among) asking me what the camera is doing. The latest is my niece. My view is that she should not have such a camera if she is not a skilled photographer (she is a coordinator of gifted and talented grades at a private school). But no, she won't hear of it. And I'm not faintly interested in digital stuff. In typical Nikon fashion it's big, heavy, clunky, has too many dials, buttons and knobs and is enamoured with so much technology that it seems to my understanding a photographer is not needed to operate it. She hasn't told me how much this contraption cost but I suspect a couple of thousand. Too difficult for me to get my head around: I'd happily spend $5,000 on a lens, but not a camera. Especially not a digital camera.

 

[ruilourosa]

i do not have a digital camera, i find digital imagery not suitable for my creative processes, besides the magic of the camera obscura present to all photographic devices digital includes another, the black box of algorithms and codes and virtuality, i do not enjoy virtuality, i enjoy truth, i enjoy the organic, i enjoy the humane.

so this fellow that writes some lines saying that other thing is nice to him... so what?

i´ve herd people saying that they prefer a computer screen repro than a visit to louvre

 

[Sirius Glass]

i do not have a digital camera, i find digital imagery not suitable for my creative processes, besides the magic of the camera obscura present to all photographic devices digital includes another, the black box of algorithms and codes and virtuality, i do not enjoy virtuality, i enjoy truth, i enjoy the organic, i enjoy the humane.

so this fellow that writes some lines saying that other thing is nice to him... so what?

i´ve herd people saying that they prefer a computer screen repro than a visit to louvre

What he said.

Steve

 

[clayne]

I have about 2000' ft of 5231 Plus-X sitting on my desk at work in sealed cinema spools - and everyone who comes by looks at it like they can't figure out what it would be used for. My most comment question is "so what movie is on there?"

After the typical "you still shoot that?" I have to continually remind them that 99.9% of all cinema they see in their voyages to the theatre was shot on film.

That being said there are some cool people who *have* recently asked me how long the Velvia in their fridge will last and they'd like to try shooting it sometime, etc. I continually notice it's a consumer vs non-consumer mindset thing.

 

[faustotesta]

I have about 2000' ft of 5231 Plus-X sitting on my desk at work in sealed cinema spools - and everyone who comes by looks at it like they can't figure out what it would be used for. My most comment question is "so what movie is on there?"

After the typical "you still shoot that?" I have to continually remind them that 99.9% of all cinema they see in their voyages to the theatre was shot on film.

That being said there are some cool people who *have* recently asked me how long the Velvia in their fridge will last and they'd like to try shooting it sometime, etc. I continually notice it's a consumer vs non-consumer mindset thing.

My big concern is that 99.9%. What will happen when the silver screen will digitalize itself ? I am not an expert in film production but i guess that our beloved rolls are produced in the same factories of cinema rolls.
As far as i know experiments are ongoing in order to make movies on digital media. I guess the industry may benefit on this (at least in terms of costs) due to the copies no longer being necessary. Will the big companies continue to produce rolls for such few potential customers ? (ourselves).
That's the question that i keep asking myself....

 

[Worker 11811]

Remember, less than 15% of all movie theaters, worldwide, are digital.

Yes, more and more theaters are installing digital projectors but we are far from the point where theaters will be unceremoniously junking their film projectors and buying digital.

For one thing, why would any rational theater owner throw out a $50,000 piece of equipment to buy a $250,000 piece of equipment that does the same job? (Yeah, yeah... I know... Studios are subsidizing the theaters' expenses. :rolleyes: )

Without going into a lot of detail, we can still count on the fact that Kodak, alone, still produces enough film to go all the way around the earth at the equator every 5 to 6 weeks.

Film isn't going away any time soon.

 

[clayne]

Not to mention materials costs for film for a typical Hollywood production are not really at the top of the list.

 

[Worker 11811]

Film moves through a 35mm movie projector at a hair over 1 mph. Your average Hollywood feature film is about 2 hours long. That's 2 miles of film per print. There are between 1,500 and 2,000 prints of each movie made, depending on distribution. (i.e. A blockbuster might have 2,000 prints made but a small, arthouse/indie film might only have a few hundred made.)

There are as many as two or three movies released each week. That adds up to about 9,000 miles of film per week. The earth is 24,900 miles in diameter. That comes out to a little under once around in 3 weeks. Sometimes there are more than 3 movies released each week. Sometimes there aren't any. Let's just say two per week as an average.

From what I can gather, it costs about $2,000 to make one copy of a 35mm film print. I don't know, exactly. Many people won't tell. (Or they can't.) I've heard figures anywhere between $500 and $5,000. I just figure the median is $2,000.

So, we are making anywhere from 2,000 to 5,000 (or more) film prints every week just to keep theaters stocked with new movies. That's as high as $10 million for ALL the movies made in a week. (Not including shipping, storage and logistics.) For one movie, that's about $3 million.

Arnold Schwarzenegger was paid about $30 million to star in "Terminator III." The movie grossed $400 million, worldwide.

Arnold got paid less than 10% of what the movie took in and the film cost less than 10% of what he got paid.

So, if the empty suits that run the movie studios could wave a magic wand and make all film disappear tomorrow, they wouldn't save enough money to hire The Governator to do another movie.

 

[nsouto]

Bingo, Worker!
Thanks for that, it neded to be said.
All these "economies" by not using film are nothing but bogus claptrap!

 

[w9cae]

There is this thread on AusPhotography showing a modern projector & some more information on the subject.

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=60148

Seems the prints sent to a theater are sent back & the celluloid is wiped clean & a new movie printed on.

 

[mrred]

So, if the empty suits that run the movie studios could wave a magic wand and make all film disappear tomorrow, they wouldn't save enough money to hire The Governator to do another movie.

In the world of business, a penny saved is important and will be done. Movies are very much a business.

I have freinds that work in that industry, and believe me, it is almost always shot digital today. Sure, there are some scenes for "effect" still shot in film. However the transformation of everything shot and put into editing is one big digital stream these days. That's reality, and it is here to stay.

This is not to say that it doesn't get finally exposed to a reel and sent to a theater, but the dailys shown in Negs and hand splicing (editing) in the back room is gone. Any real film shot is digitized for digital editing and possible cgi.

Like everything else in that world, it's just business and it makes sence.

Shooting film "just beceause" is the most stupid thing to suggest, IMO. I am not going to waste my money on products just beceause someone else doesn't use enough to keep in manufactured. I am not of the camp that the world must shoot in analog "just beceause". I shoot film beceause I *want and enjoy the process*, peroid. I can't see me leaving any time soon and I don't have a grudge for anyone shooting digital.

Kodak is not going to stop making film. Yes the choices may be fewer, but life will go on. Even if they did, those "other" companies will pick up the slack. Every time I go click someone will sell me something to go click with. That's business.

To answer the thread: How many times have they announced that disco was dead? It never left, but has been called other things........

 

[clayne]

I have freinds that work in that industry, and believe me, it is almost always shot digital today. Sure, there are some scenes for "effect" still shot in film. However the transformation of everything shot and put into editing is one big digital stream these days. That's reality, and it is here to stay.

This is inaccurate. The scenes are initially recorded to film and then high-speed scanned for editing. Post-editing, are then printed out to interpositives, internegs, yadda yadda to the theaters.

That isn't "shot digital" one bit.

 

[mrred]

This is inaccurate. The scenes are initially recorded to film and then high-speed scanned for editing. Post-editing, are then printed out to interpositives, internegs, yadda yadda to the theaters.

That isn't "shot digital" one bit.

I guess we are more modern up here.

 

[clayne]

I guess we are more modern up here.

Has nothing to do with that. Has to do with being accurate in what you state. Ironically the general order of what you said was fairly accurate - but the fact is the footage itself is still recorded to film, just that the during the editing stage digital copies are being manipulated.

If you understand the character and response of film you'll understand why it's important to make the initial exposure to an analog silver medium.

Besides, the process has been long established and is quite efficient.

 

[Worker 11811]

I did not include film used in production and post production. I don't know how much is used. Maybe somebody else could tell us that. Let's just guess.

A 10:1 shooting ratio on-set and a 1:10 film use ratio for post production. That comes out to what? 20:1? So, for a 2 hour feature, 40 hours of film are used to make it, exclusive of the release prints? That's only another 20 prints' worth. $40,000. Maybe $50,000.
A drop in the bucket.

Again... I'm only guessing on this. I don't know for sure. I'm not in film production. Only exhibition.

Digital movies are shipped on hard drives. They still have to be shipped and managed. Somebody has to copy the data onto them. Bad ones have to be weeded out. New ones have to be bought. Hard drives for cinema use are not the cheapo $99.00 Circuit City Specials we buy. A good enterprise class hard drive can cost from $200 to $400 or more. It takes two hard drives to hold a feature movie. It is easy to imagine that it would cost $500 to $1,000 to distribute a release copy of a Hollywood feature movie.

w9cae has it right. Old movie prints are recycled. They are made on polyester-based stock. From what I read, it's the same stuff they make plastic soda bottles out of. The old prints that come back to the warehouses are sorted out, good from the bad. Some of the good ones are sent to storage for later use. The bad, scratched, damaged and/or unneeded ones are chopped up into little bits and melted down to make new movies.

You really aren't saving THAT much money by switching to digital. But... you CAN encrypt the movies on hard disks. Without the encryption key, nobody will be able to play the movie, even if they have the hard drives in-hand. With all-digital movie distribution, they, the studio heads, will be able to type a command into their computers and revoke permission for any individual theater to play that movie any time they want. They can even specify what times the movies can or can not play.

That is what the studios are after. Control!

And, as far as I know, all-digital production for Hollywood feature movies is a long way away, too.
Most movies are shot on film with 24-p video shot side by side. The video files are edited on computer then an edit decision list is sent to the cutting room. Film cutters assemble the answer print according to the EDL. Analog scenes for digital effects / CGI are scanned in, edited then sent to film recorders for final output.

Again, I want to make clear that I know the exhibition (theater) end of the business a lot better than I know the production (studio) end. I know what I know about production because I read about it. I might read incorrect information or read correct information poorly. I know what I know about exhibition because I have done the job for several years.

 

[MattKing]

There have been 82 Academy Awards ceremonies since they began. During that time, 80 (of 82?) of the movies that received a "Best Picture" award were originally shot on Kodak motion picture film.