What 35MM cameras will still work in 2038?

[Photo Engineer]

Ok, so y'all missed my post.

Here is the bottom line. If those cameras work it will be rather meaningless if 35mm film is hard to get or impossible to get! This is a possible trend in that MF and LF may be the trend of the future as the dust settles.

PE

 

[2F/2F]

Ok, so y'all missed my post.

Here is the bottom line. If those cameras work it will be rather meaningless if 35mm film is hard to get or impossible to get! This is a possible trend in that MF and LF may be the trend of the future as the dust settles.

PE

Agreed. When Hollywood goes digital, 35mm will be pretty well DONE almost overnight. It happened when the press went digital overnight, and it will happen again. The reduced demand on silver will raise the costs of other film formats as well. With the plethora of excellent and cheap digital equipment on the used market, it will simply no longer be cost effective for most people to do film any more. Look at standard 8. 25 bucks to buy and process four minutes, and it only still exists at all because it is actually 16 stock. This does not include printing, which is hard to have done these days as well. You can't force students to pay so much for a learning medium. Everyone learns on DV these days. The same will happen with stills in the schools, as if it isn't already. Sad....

 

[David Brown]

This is not a specious question. If these machines are retired, there will be no 35mm film to feed any operational camera.

Always the ray of sunshine, there, aren't ya Ron ...

 

[David Brown]

Agreed. When Hollywood goes digital, 35mm will be pretty well DONE almost overnight.

So what am I missing? If Hollywood stops shooting movies on color film stock, Ilford won't be able to manufactor B&W film. :confused:

 

[Photo Engineer]

Always the ray of sunshine, there, aren't ya Ron ...

David;

IDK what the future brings any more than the next person, but I can see trends and bring them up.

If I were what you say, I would give up my work on teaching people like you how to make and coat emulsions. Gee, I might anyhow. If you are right I'm spitting in the ocean.

PE

 

[JBrunner]

Motion picture stock is not really tied to still film. It won't keep the emulsions you use around, nor will it kill them if it goes away. Different stock. Different emulsion. Different process. 35mm still film will stand or fall on its own. Some of the ongoing R&D for MP benefits the still camera emulsions downstream. Kodak dumped B&W paper, and still continues to make volumes of color paper, so shouldn't the color paper have kept black and white around? Obviously the answer is no, and thats about how close MP emulsions are tied to still emulsions (from the pointy end). Only Kodak and Fuji are even in the MP business, yet a plethora of other companies, especially B&W are still in business. If demand for the product is there they will continue to make it. If demand falls too low it goes away, however the notion that motion picture keeps the still film used in our cameras around is false, except the contribution it makes to a bottom line ie the overall financial well being of a company, and the volume purchasing of some raw materials. Kodak could stop making still film, and continue manufacturing MP, which is the likeliest scenario, if demand for still emulsions fall. We have already seen this regarding some emulsions. It's a cherished notion, a nice thought that it keeps still film around, but not on the money. The thing that keeps still emulsions around is the demand for it. BTW, motion picture film positively sucks for stills, even when you process it correctly.

While film use has drastically declined, keep in mind that at the peak it was a 13 billion with a B dollar a year industry. Even with the decline there's still some money left in the old horse.

 

[André E.C.]

Even with the decline, there's still some money left in the old horse.

André

 

[2F/2F]

"except the contribution it makes to a bottom line ie the overall financial well being of a company, and the volume purchasing of some raw materials."

This is exactly what I am talking about. Seeing the volumes shot every day here in Hollywood compared to the volumes shot by the small number of film-using still photographers, I would be surprised if a healthy majority of their income from film did not come from the motion picture industry, and if a healthy majority of their raw materials ordered in bulk were not intended for use in MP films. Lowered demand for MP film would no doubt make it harder to make a profit with still film...as if it isn't hard enough already. I am not saying that the same people generally buy both MP and still film, or that they are both useful for the same purpose. What I am saying is that the volume of MP film produced and sold has to *far* outweigh the volume of still film produced and sold, and that they must therefore make much more money with MP film. I think this due to two things: 1. Film is still the standard professional medium in the MP industry, and 2. The sheer lengths of film used in MP vs. still shooting. I will probably shoot as much surface area of film in my entire life as a TV series production shoots on one episode...hell; probably even a week, or a day in some cases. When MP film goes out, Kodak and Fuji are going to lose a ton of power to get discounted prices for bulk purchases, not to mention having a bunch of wasted equipment, supplies, real estate, and jobs lying around.

 

[JBrunner]

"except the contribution it makes to a bottom line ie the overall financial well being of a company, and the volume purchasing of some raw materials."

This is exactly what I am talking about. Seeing the volumes shot every day here in Hollywood compared to the volumes shot by the small number of film-using still photographers, I would be surprised if a healthy majority of their income from film did not come from the motion picture industry, and if a healthy majority of their raw materials ordered in bulk were not intended for use in MP films. Lowered demand for MP film would no doubt make it harder to make a profit with still film...as if it isn't hard enough already. I am not saying that the same people generally buy both MP and still film, or that they are both useful for the same purpose. What I am saying is that the volume of MP film produced and sold has to *far* outweigh the volume of still film produced and sold, and that they must therefore make much more money with MP film. I think this due to two things: 1. Film is still the standard professional medium in the MP industry, and 2. The sheer lengths of film used in MP vs. still shooting. I will probably shoot as much surface area of film in my entire life as a TV series production shoots on one episode...hell; probably even a week, or a day in some cases. When MP film goes out, Kodak and Fuji are going to lose a ton of power to get discounted prices for bulk purchases, not to mention having a bunch of wasted equipment, supplies, real estate, and jobs lying around.

Last low budget movie I shot on 35mm I shot 120,000 feet, give or take a few thousand.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Depending on who I talk to, I hear that Kodak's total output of MP film is 60% - 90% of their total production, and even though they sell a lot less, the percentage is about the same for Fuji. Without that to supply income, the Kodak analog R&D program would collapse. Right now, the EK analog R&D program is larger than the entire Ilford plant in both number of people and although not as large is just about that big in relative terms in coating capacity.

Maybe that gives you an idea of the relative sizes and output.

If Kodak and Fuji vanished, 35mm film would probably still be made, but at what price and with what availability? You might afford 1 roll a year by the middle of this century at the prevailing costs due to the scenario above. The film, if made, would have to support a profit for any company.

What would survive is the ability to hand coat LF sheet film and contact papers! That is and will be trivial for most darkroom workers and will remain an economical route for any forseeable future.

PE

 

[gb hill]

The big problem with hollywood going totally digital is in the cost of stowage. Currently to store a digital motion picture the yearly rate is in the thousands of dollars compared to mere hundreds for film. I also read that bits of the digital encryption, files, or whatever they call it are being corrupted over time & cost for a fix is enormous. Much cheaper to use film & convert to digital.

 

[John_Nikon_F]

To get back to the original topic at hand, I suspect that most mechanical cameras will continue to work for the next 30-40 years. I don't see there being a problem for the Nikkormats, FM series, F/F2, etc, to continue functioning at least mechanically. Same with the SR/SRT series Minoltas, FT series Canons, mechanical Pentax bodies, etc. Batteries might not be available for the meters, and parts to repair the meters will likely be fairly well dried up, so it may be sunny-16 time by then.

-J

 

[resummerfield]

Any Leica rangefinder camera would be a good candidate. If bought today at a favorable price it is the camera with the best chance of holding and increasing value in 2038........

That's my pick, too. I believe even the new ones, such as the MP, have shutters rated to over 400k cycles.

In the SLR line, a Nikon F or F2 would probably still work.

 

[2F/2F]

The big problem with hollywood going totally digital is in the cost of stowage. Currently to store a digital motion picture the yearly rate is in the thousands of dollars compared to mere hundreds for film. I also read that bits of the digital encryption, files, or whatever they call it are being corrupted over time & cost for a fix is enormous. Much cheaper to use film & convert to digital.

Absolutely true...for now. Digital will gradually seep into the industry, as it already is, then there will come a tipping point with the introduction of some new technology for shooting or storage. How long this will take, I have no clue. It will likely be some time...but it will happen, and probably in our lifetime. Even before digital SLRs were of decent quality, news services - who, as the MP industry does now, were already using a hybrid workflow consisting of shooting on film and then scanning to edit and transmit - were experimenting with them. They seeped in and started being used alongside film. It was obvious in the press that digital was the ticket, due to the speed of transmission, however, the quality was not yet good enough to get rid of film altogether. There was poor dynamic range, high noise even at relatively low ISOs, terrible battery life, small file sizes, the fact that shooters and editors were still learning how to work best with the new medium, and that managers and investors were still trying to figure out the best way and the right time to make a smooth and profitable transition. The camera that eventually murdered film pretty much overnight was the Nikon D1. It was somehow deemed the digital body that provided images good enough for the wire so that all film could be left behind for press use. It is absolutely true that storage and archival ability of files is incredibly expensive, and not as secure as film. However, digital still means more profits and faster service. The cost of film stock, processing, and digitization is very, very high in the MP industry. I am sure they will be looking to axe these costs as soon as is feasible, despite some of the disadvantages and costs of working digitally. Everything is a compromise. It's just a matter of which route of compromise you would like to take...and in a free-market economy, and an industry in which businesses are run as investments by businessmen as opposed to owned by craftspeople, that route will always be the more profitable route. You can bet your bottom dollar that the investors who own film production companies, and many producers, have already decided that digital is the way they are going, and they are just waiting for the right time and the right technology to allow the switch to occur smoothly and profitably.

 

[SilverGlow]

The big problem with hollywood going totally digital is in the cost of stowage. Currently to store a digital motion picture the yearly rate is in the thousands of dollars compared to mere hundreds for film. I also read that bits of the digital encryption, files, or whatever they call it are being corrupted over time & cost for a fix is enormous. Much cheaper to use film & convert to digital.

This is so not true! I did some consulting work for Technicolor's film distribution and archival business unit, and I can tell you that warehousing digital movies is less than 1/100th of what it costs to archive film reels. And distribution costs for digital moveis is less then 1/100th what it costs to distribute a just out feature film. Do you know how many gallons of gasoline it takes to distribute a movie for the Xmas holiday nation wide? Tens of thousands of gallons, and that is just one cost center. Digital gets distributed via satellite, through the airwaves onto a harddrive at the theatre. And over time a reel of film can get damaged, but a digital copy NEVER shows damaged because if it gets corrupt, it gets refreshed via satellite. Reels are put on a circuit, and go theatre to theatre, thousands of them for a given feature film. This means HUGE costs, HUGE wastes, and HUGE achival and maintenence costs.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Silver;

Kodak figures show that digital storage, at the present time, is considerably higher than that of analog storage. I have to agree with GB Hill on this one. In fact, I posted rather close figures on this elsewhere. The big costs are in maintaining storage for the originals, and not the prints. Prints are disposable.

PE

 

[SilverGlow]

Silver;

Kodak figures show that digital storage, at the present time, is considerably higher than that of analog storage. I have to agree with GB Hill on this one. In fact, I posted rather close figures on this elsewhere. The big costs are in maintaining storage for the originals, and not the prints. Prints are disposable.

PE

It does not matter what Kodak says. What matters are what the companies that archive and distribute digital movies say, and they show that the distribution and archival of digital movies is exceedingly cheaper then that of film. I know.

I've worked in such business units and I saw the numbers.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, the archiving figures from George Eastman House agree as well, that film storage is far less expensive than digital storage and the storage format does not go out of date. The figures I've seen quoted run up as high as a 10X higher cost for digital storage.

PE

 

[tim_walls]

I'll ask another question here.

What 35mm slitting, perfing and spooling equipment will be operational in 2038 considering they have to be custom built and constantly maintained. This is not a specious question. If these machines are retired, there will be no 35mm film to feed any operational camera.

It is easy to slit and chop roll and sheet film. Perfing without defects and removal of the perf debris is not trivial.

You know, the depressing assumption throughout this entire thread is that our manufacturing abilities will have completely evaporated in 30 years' time...


If the LCD in my camera fails, could I produce a replacement LCD? No. But I could easily produce a functional equivalent using something like LEDs; it wouldn't necessarily be pretty, but I can guarantee you it would work. Hell, in 20 years I would be surprised if with the aid of an inkjet printer and electro-luminescent ink I couldn't produce you a replacement that was actually better than the original.

With advances - in FPGA technology in particular - that have already happened, I'd posit that actually even the custom logic components of an SLR would be within the capabilities of a homebrewer today.

As for the mechanical components of a camera; of course they are all replaceable. The fact there are still horologists - both professional and amateur - keeping clocks running stands testament to that.


Oh, and I've seen the 'small' 35mm punching, edge-mark-exposing and finishing machines at the Ilford factory. Could I make one myself? No, but I bet your bottom dollar I know a man who can. Has lathe, doesn't travel much, but if you think a 35mm perfing machine is irreplaceable technology I'd like to introduce you to him or the many, many people keeping vintage computer gear - including card punches, readers, tape handling mechanisms, printers, etc. etc. - running.

Speaking of which, I have a 30-odd year old DEC PDP-11 running in my understairs cupboard, which suggests the fears of anything electrical evaporating once it passes a certain date may be overblown .



Any of this stuff can be kept running provided there is someone out there with the will to do it.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Tim;

I don't disagree with anything you said. Your last line says it all though. You need someone with the will to do it and it must somehow make a profit.

No, these machines are not impossible to build. But if they all wear out, and no one wants to build one for lack of profit, then the 35mm cameras will become truly obsolete. I'm trying to point out that LF film and plates take much less infrastructure to support as far as large industry is concerned. A lone person can make enough LF film for a vacation shooting some good pix. That is my bottom line.

PE

 

[tim_walls]

Tim;

I don't disagree with anything you said. Your last line says it all though. You need someone with the will to do it and it must somehow make a profit.

No, these machines are not impossible to build. But if they all wear out, and no one wants to build one for lack of profit, then the 35mm cameras will become truly obsolete. I'm trying to point out that LF film and plates take much less infrastructure to support as far as large industry is concerned. A lone person can make enough LF film for a vacation shooting some good pix. That is my bottom line.

While there are a few people keeping PDP-11s and paper tape readers and punches going for profit, there are more people doing it for a hobby. Not everything has to be driven by profit motive; if things are to continue as a commercial venture though, you're right of course - and I was very careful not to make any comment on commercial viability. That said, I'd be very surprised if existing small-scale 35mm finishing machines (like Ilford's older small machines, not the monster they bought from Agfa) weren't maintainable at reasonable cost - they appear to be very basic, if custom, engineering.


Maybe I'm just not so pessimistic about our future abilities. One of my old college's mascots is a 1902 James & Browne motorcar by the name of Boanerges; I can assure you the manufacturer's warranty expired some time ago, and as she's only one of two surviving in the world the spare parts pool is somewhat limited. All the parts to keep her going have to be made by the students, and you know what? She still makes it on the London to Brighton drive and out to the Lord Mayor's show more or less every year. For all I like to complain about the decline of our manufacturing base and the youth of today (not that I'm that far from being one of them I hope,) there are people capable of making things still!

(I saw Bo at a recent alumni do; I had the pleasure of chatting to a chap from the class of 1938 - he told me the only real difference he could see in the education was that in his day you weren't allowed to bring girls into your student lodgings. Apparently this didn't lead to a more high-minded approach to study free from the distractions of the opposite sex though, it just led to more novel and unusual ways to smuggle them in... .)

 

[Photo Engineer]

Tim;

Again, I cannot fault your logic, but someday the CPU on the PDP-11 motherboard will fail and then there will be the effort to find a replacement if one is to be found at all. You cannot make the CPU anywhere, and this may be true of some of the cars being produced today which use esoteric computer parts in the control systems.

The same is true of some of the fine grain emulsions used for 35mm. I didn't get into that in my last post, but some LF emulsions will be easier to make with reasonable quality by an individual in the future. High quality 35mm will be harder to make.

There are so many impediments out there to keeping 35mm alive, if it is fated to die, than there are to support it. I have something like 7 or so 35mm cameras and I don't want to see them die either. But, I realize that 110 is still out there and better than ever due to the increasing quality of the film. Now that might have taken off if the film had been better 20 years ago.

I do NOT want to see 35mm die, but I know what impediments exist that may keep it from going on living.

PE

 

[SilverGlow]

Well, the archiving figures from George Eastman House agree as well, that film storage is far less expensive than digital storage and the storage format does not go out of date. The figures I've seen quoted run up as high as a 10X higher cost for digital storage.

PE

But are we talking about archiving orignals, or copies for distribution? I speak of the latter.

 

[Photo Engineer]

All of my comments pertain to originals only, either analog or digital.

No copies for distribution are ever considered archive quality due to the use in projectors which both fade and physically damage them.

GEH considers silver masters (separation negatives of color original) to be the most archival. They have the originals of GWTW, Wizard of OZ, Wings and many others in their multi-million dollar archives. Some of these are on nitrate film and they go to extraordinary lengths to both conserve the film itself and to prevent fire. In spite of these precautions both GEH and EK consider digital to be more costly. One of the big costs is the rather rapid degradation of all digital storage media such as DVDs and Magnetic Tape. In fact, analog silver sound tracks are more stable than analog magnetic sound tracks on analog film.

A major project at Kodak is to make an archival digital storage medium that also is formatted in a long term format. For example, who today can read an Apple /// disk? Well, some formats of DVDs are now obsolete. There is a large business existing that is devoted to copying fading digital images onto new DVDs in more modern data formats. (I include in this magnetic tape)

PE

 

[wogster]

To get back to the original topic at hand, I suspect that most mechanical cameras will continue to work for the next 30-40 years. I don't see there being a problem for the Nikkormats, FM series, F/F2, etc, to continue functioning at least mechanically. Same with the SR/SRT series Minoltas, FT series Canons, mechanical Pentax bodies, etc. Batteries might not be available for the meters, and parts to repair the meters will likely be fairly well dried up, so it may be sunny-16 time by then.

-J

I have a 31 year old Konica TC, it has never seen a repair centre, I can get a CLA done to this camera, and new felt, no reason why the camera could not work for another 31 years. Only thing that might get in the way is that I will be 78, 31 years from now, so I might not be shooting much then, of course being retired, I might be shooting even more!

As for film availability, most people think of it, as needing a Kodak or Ilford or Fuji sized company. There is little other then a coating machine that is specialized, so I expect that cottage industry film companies will spring up to fill the void, some of these companies will hire the experts that used to work for the big companies. The advantage being lots of new films that were never available because they didn't generate high enough profits for the bean counters at big companies.

Think if Kodak and Fuji disappeared tomorrow that companies like Freestyle would simply disappear? Companies that like working with film, and supplying film, will find ways to get the equipment, and produce their own. Guys like our own PE would end up working for them.