Fuji announces film stock production to end in 2013

My biggest frustration with Super 8mm was seeing nice images projected 6, 7 or 8 feet across and knowing that this would be the best it ever looked. We couldn't afford high quality transfers to video so had to settle for a DIY film chain set up that really killed the quality. Now with 16mm; Projecting the answer print, one generation off of the negative, was exhilarating and being able to share that with an audience was very cool.

Of course, there is no going back. With digital acquisition we do have great tools at our disposal nowadays, but it is sad that we may be losing a creative option.
 
David G. Smith said:
Projecting the answer print, one generation off of the negative, was exhilarating and being able to share that with an audience was very cool.
Click to expand...

I would imagine had I 'seen' such a presentation, I would have been impressed... but as it was, I doubt very seriously that any Hollywood production I've ever seen was 1 generation away from the original negative.

And that was sort of the problem with Film film. Digital has a different set of problems of course, but few people other than those who attended a premier, and perhaps not even then... saw film with the best distribution print, the best calibrated/adjusted projector.... etc.

In the days before the 'wide' open day, prints were moved from city to city, and many of my earliest film recollections are from places like El Centro California... not on the 'first release' schedule for any movie... even ones that were shot on the dester surrounding the town. (Its a long story as to why I would be seeing movies in El Centro... but I digress...).

In any case, sprocket jumpiness, scratches and dust, were for me common viewing detractions. After the 'wide' type distribution came in vogue, the prints often were better, at least for the first few weeks... but still projectors were often contributors...

To be sure digital does not remove the projector problem... but for dust, scratches, and claw jitter, those should be gone... one still has badly aligned projection optics and screen... poor light from the projector...etc... but one had all that and more with Film film.

Another issue that perhaps was just a 'still' image issue, was that Kodak printing papers of my youth had 'degraded' to the point where they always seemed 'washed out', and had a somewhat ugly 'brownish' color cast to them. Ilford papers seemed to have a more neutral 'b&w', and seemed to have more 'silver' to reach a deeper black. The last paper I printed on was a brand called 'Seagull' which achieved an even better tonal range than Ilford.

Since by the time I tuned in to photography B&W was totally absent from any Hollywood production, I don't know if this sort of consideration was apropos or not. I do know that Kodak pretty much stopped on developing 'new' B&W movie film in the late 50's early 60's. To me, the increase in ISO of color film was always sort of a 'slow' process. But that may be my 'outsider' perceptions.
 
"Sometimes I get annoyed with the garbage I hear about film vs. digital. Most of it is simply nostalgia and silly thinking. I love film, sure, but [today] digital is simply better. It's got more latitude, it's got better color rendition. It's faster..."

-Roger Deakins
 
gonzo_entertainment said:
That's what I mean about what we've lost. The skill, the knowledge, the technique required to shoot all day without being able to see the results. Having to trust that your skill was getting what you wanted based on your careful checking of exposure, lighting, film stock used, etc... It was a whole different way of shooting, so deliberate and precise.
Click to expand...

I sort of resent that remark. We haven't lost it at all. Just because I shoot exclusively in the digital world doesn't mean anything has changed for the craft. You still need to treat the set the same damn way. Check exposure, properly light your subject, selecting the right ISO for your given environment... its all the same, and remarks like that kinda rub me the wrong way, because it makes it seem like just because the camera changed, so did our craft.

It didn't change 1 bit. A cinematographer is a cinematographer. The camera does not make the DP, the ability to lens and light the subject is. It's stupid cheap producers and young dumb youtube kids who are the only ones accepting lesser quality. And I dont give a rats ass what they think. Just because society is dumbed down to youtube doesn't mean I'm going to become lazy and not shoot right.

I have all my skills and technique as I did when I shot film. I will continue to shoot and teach these skills the same way. Only difference is I dont have to teach someone how to thread a mag, instead I have to teach how to dump footage and reformat.

On REAL movie sets the attention to detail is the exact same if not more when shooting digital vs film. Whats changed is dailies. Those are gone and that saddens a lot of people. But now you see what you get on set and you can sleep at night... I'll take sleep over dailies any day.

I shoot deliberate and precise, and everyone else should as well. The director wants to keep shooting and shooting footage, I usually put a stop to it and explain it wont help the project. You need to educate and put your foot down and explain why we do things this way, and why it needs to stay this way.
 
FilmDude said:
I sort of resent that remark. We haven't lost it at all. Just because I shoot exclusively in the digital world doesn't mean anything has changed for the craft. You still need to treat the set the same damn way. Check exposure, properly light your subject, selecting the right ISO for your given environment... its all the same, and remarks like that kinda rub me the wrong way, because it makes it seem like just because the camera changed, so did our craft.

It didn't change 1 bit. A cinematographer is a cinematographer. The camera does not make the DP, the ability to lens and light the subject is. It's stupid cheap producers and young dumb youtube kids who are the only ones accepting lesser quality. And I dont give a rats ass what they think. Just because society is dumbed down to youtube doesn't mean I'm going to become lazy and not shoot right.

I have all my skills and technique as I did when I shot film. I will continue to shoot and teach these skills the same way. Only difference is I dont have to teach someone how to thread a mag, instead I have to teach how to dump footage and reformat.

On REAL movie sets the attention to detail is the exact same if not more when shooting digital vs film. Whats changed is dailies. Those are gone and that saddens a lot of people. But now you see what you get on set and you can sleep at night... I'll take sleep over dailies any day.

I shoot deliberate and precise, and everyone else should as well. The director wants to keep shooting and shooting footage, I usually put a stop to it and explain it wont help the project. You need to educate and put your foot down and explain why we do things this way, and why it needs to stay this way.
Click to expand...

The part of your quote that sticks out.. "When I shot film"....
There is a generation coming that never did, never will. They came up on "spray and pray"
 
David G. Smith said:
So, how do you think this bodes for the discussion? Kodak has a 20% sale on KODAK VISION2 50D Color Negative Film 5201/7201 and on KODAK 500T Color Negative Film 5230/7230 through 09/30/2012.

http://store.kodak.com/store/ekconsus/en_US/pd/VISION2_50D_Color_Negative_Film/productID.229249700

http://store.kodak.com/store/ekconsus/en_US/pd/500T_Color_Negative_Film/productID.229250200
Click to expand...

Vision2 is the older stuff. I'm sure they are likely only making VisionIII now that the VisionIII line has multiple flavors. Since film stock has a shelf life, I'd say they are just trying to clear out leftover stock. I'll increase my concern for ailing Kodak when the firesale of VisionIII happens.
 
gonzo_entertainment said:
The part of your quote that sticks out.. "When I shot film"....
There is a generation coming that never did, never will. They came up on "spray and pray"
Click to expand...

They grew up on being able to shoot and experiment a thousand times over without a moments hesitation. They grew up having been behind a camera and shot far, far, far, far, far more often than the film folks did. I'm not worried.

I'm currently involved in helping teach a class that was taught for years on 16mm Arri cameras. The students shot, edited, and screened the actual film, no digitizing. Now it's digital with large sensor cameras. So far I haven't really noticed an effective artistic difference except the digital films are a lot sharper and better exposed.

I really don't think the film -> digital transition in education is nearly as big a deal as people often think.
 
Jester2138 said:
"Sometimes I get annoyed with the garbage I hear about film vs. digital. Most of it is simply nostalgia and silly thinking. I love film, sure, but [today] digital is simply better. It's got more latitude, it's got better color rendition. It's faster..."

-Roger Deakins
Click to expand...

The same can be said about vinyl vs CD and do they still make vinyl's now? yes. it's simply just analog vs digital, character vs perfection. The people who still shoot on film clearly understand that it's subpar compared to a digital format, but they still shoot it. We will forever chase perfection and we'll never catch it, for if we caught it we would become obsolete and useless. I've always wondered if in so many years that people will not understand what Paper & Pencil is and they'll somehow discover it and think it's amazing, oh what joy. It's a never ending circle of despair.
 
FilmDude said:
I sort of resent that remark. We haven't lost it at all. Just because I shoot exclusively in the digital world doesn't mean anything has changed for the craft. You still need to treat the set the same damn way. Check exposure, properly light your subject, selecting the right ISO for your given environment... its all the same, and remarks like that kinda rub me the wrong way, because it makes it seem like just because the camera changed, so did our craft.

It didn't change 1 bit. A cinematographer is a cinematographer. The camera does not make the DP, the ability to lens and light the subject is. It's stupid cheap producers and young dumb youtube kids who are the only ones accepting lesser quality. And I dont give a rats ass what they think. Just because society is dumbed down to youtube doesn't mean I'm going to become lazy and not shoot right.

I have all my skills and technique as I did when I shot film. I will continue to shoot and teach these skills the same way. Only difference is I dont have to teach someone how to thread a mag, instead I have to teach how to dump footage and reformat.

On REAL movie sets the attention to detail is the exact same if not more when shooting digital vs film. Whats changed is dailies. Those are gone and that saddens a lot of people. But now you see what you get on set and you can sleep at night... I'll take sleep over dailies any day.

I shoot deliberate and precise, and everyone else should as well. The director wants to keep shooting and shooting footage, I usually put a stop to it and explain it wont help the project. You need to educate and put your foot down and explain why we do things this way, and why it needs to stay this way.
Click to expand...


Well said, sir.
 
Jester2138 said:
I'm currently involved in helping teach a class that was taught for years on 16mm Arri cameras. The students shot, edited, and screened the actual film, no digitizing. Now it's digital with large sensor cameras. So far I haven't really noticed an effective artistic difference except the digital films are a lot sharper and better exposed.
Click to expand...

The Wife gave photo seminars in the pre-digital age as well as post digital... For stills one had to shoot film, then rush out to a service for processing. Most of the private week long seminar type schools had a deal with some service in the area to have staff to process the load of film from the students over night.

Post digital... shoot... review... cut out the delay and expense of processing. The 'biggest' difficulty with digital is in fact the ease at which one can now generate a lot of work for oneself... or others if that work is done in post...

There may be the issue of poor imaging being 'processed in post'... but that a side, the use of post to do far more 'creative' work has led to some amount of 'more work' not less.

In the olden days, once a properly exposed image was made, one may chose to have the negative or print 'retouched'... some... perhaps in the printing change some of the color balance... but not that much...

With digital... well... there's lots of futzing with the image that can be done 'easily'...
 
Yeah. I should add that the editing has changed the films a bit, primarily in that students are not afraid of making films that involve complex editing. In the context of this class where students are many several films every semester, it was such a huge pain in the a** to have a short film with 30 shots because they had to physically piece together all 30 shots, which is much harder than it sounds. Now it's a piece of cake. So in terms of post-production the films have certainly changed, but in terms of production and cinematography they have not.
 
gonzo_entertainment said:
The part of your quote that sticks out.. "When I shot film"....
There is a generation coming that never did, never will. They came up on "spray and pray"
Click to expand...

Well my point is the people who are teaching need to continue to teach this craft properly. I started in film, learned proper ways, and will hand down that knowledge. There for whoever I teach will then have proper knowledge and when they end up teaching, will continue the proper technique.

It's been done this way for over 100 years... Technology in cinematography kept changing over those 100 + years... Black and white to color, color to different stocks, better color, wider gates, larger film, anamorphic compression, better lens technology, faster rushes, better projection... It's always been getting constantly better and clearer image. Why only in the past 10 -15 years has the craft seemed to suffer?

Because the price of cameras dropped into the hands of the UNEDUCATED. Sorry for this to sound negative, but its my opinion and im in America so... stuff it lol... but here it goes...

What really changed is that stupid kids with daddy and mommies money goes out to buy a 7D, 5D, GH2, whatever... They then shoot, dont learn anything at all from proper schooling.


in the passed 100 years that footage would have NEVER seen the light of day. Because it would most likely have been on 8mm film. No way to show it to the world. Just sits on that 1 reel, in a can, in a basement. Done.

NOW that same crappy uneducated "filmmaker" can put his/her crappy film up on the internet where millions of other crappy "filmmakers" can see it and say "hey that looks good" (mind you with no real idea of what good actually is in the professional sense of cinematography) It then becomes and overfluffing of each-others bad work. That work spreads though the internet and is open for anyone to see. That ends up being accepted as a "look" because its out there. Not because its good, but because it just happened to exist in a public view.

Crappy films look the same now as they did back 50 years or more... BAD lighting BAD composition BAD everything. ONLY difference is when film was king, that just sat in a can. Now its posted up and people can see it.


It's a dumbing down of the public that causes this. It is OUR responsibility as trained and skilled artists of painters with light, cinematographers, that we continue the education of this craft in a proper manner. To show the difference of WHY something is bad and something is good. YES there is bad and good, people who like to mush it all together simply make an excuse for their lack of being able to visually understand greatness. Taste can swing, but in the general sense there is no arguing who are some of the best cinematographers out there.

REAL movies from hollywood, (canada lol) and alike, all have a similar look cinematically. Not creatively, but similar in QUALITY of the picture, movement, and lighting. Take away the story and all that, and you still have moving images that are shot beautifully with proper lighting, proper lens choice, ect...

This is mostly taught, some are born with the ability to just watch movies and replicate a hollywood look, and some have to be taught. I honestly never really saw someone who went from being a bad DP to good. I'm one of the believers that its mostly a thing you're born with. You cannot teach someone to have a good eye. You can teach them the proper lighting and all that, but in the end, the people who shine through are the 'born with the eye' DP's

Problem is, what is available for mass consumption on the internet is neither educated "DPs" nor 'born with the eye' "DPs"... instead its just people who got a camera and posting their films.

I'm a strong believer in filtering quality from the quantity. But people are getting used to seeing crap online, and thats starting a trend of lesser quality films, which then hurts our craft. I believe the education needs to be continued, so that the good quality filmmakers can drown out the youtube crap and continue on with the cinematic legacy.

_ COMPLETELY SIDE NOTE:

I HATE that they shot "The Hobbit" at 48fps and understand why the did it, but thats an awful horrible, ugly, magicless look to a MOVIE. 24 and 25p have a special quality that can only be done with those frame rates, anything else is just video.

I had a friend with a 120hz HD tv... they had a movie on (I forget which one) IT WAS SO BAD watching the movie, I came in half way through and was like... your frequency is off, you need to change it to 60... they had no idea why they didn't like the film, everyone in the room was like... this movie is stupid and cheap feeling. Its because the TV was making the 24p image look like a 60p image, through stupid technology in new tvs that boggles my mind as to why it was invented...

Anyway.. I got sooo fed up with watching the movie, I got up and stopped everyone. I got the remove, and took 5mins to find buried in the tv menu the 120 setting, switched it to proper 60 which means 24p WAS NOW actually showing 24p

Continued the movie. EVERY single person in that room was floored at how much of an emotional difference the film took. JUST from changing a frame rate, it was the difference from being taken away to the magic of cinema, or being thrown into a video look that feels cheap and glassy.

Needless to say, they never turned that back on, and now enjoy their huge 50" tv with bluray dvds in real 24p jutter and love it.

People need to stop getting dumbed down, they dont know what they are missing. Just explain and visually show them the difference and most of them get it the second they actually see the difference.


Will I see The Hobbit in 48fps? Yes but ONLY in 3D where i think it MIGHT help. Will I like it... eh we'll see. But if I decide to watch it in 2D instead, I will be calling the theaters to make sure the one I see will be the ones they are showing in the changed 24p motion instead.
 
Well reasoned post sir.

I agree on the Hobbit as well. The teaser/trailer footage I saw... IMO it looks like complete crap. Horrible, hate it. Reserving final judgement for the finished product, but what I have seen so far.. yuck.

I came into film making way too late in life to have ever had the pleasure of shooting film for a movie (except a little 8mm experimentation), but I have 30 plus years of still film photography in my past. It just pains my heart to start talking about the ins and outs of shooting film to these kids and their eyes glaze over like I am speaking Chinese.
 
FilmDude said:
in the passed 100 years that footage would have NEVER seen the light of day. Because it would most likely have been on 8mm film. No way to show it to the world. Just sits on that 1 reel, in a can, in a basement. Done.
Click to expand...


While Youtube has allowed 'crappy basement action'... well, other than porn... unless one is on top of the new submissions... by a 'world audience'... but in reality, how many truly 'crappy' clips other than some couple that have caused some sort of international incident... really are viewed by more than the origininator and their friends...

In terms of listening to many young/mid-career current directors, many started off with 8mm... and the film "8mm" is sort of an homage to those activities... was it Abrams who had some sort of connection to Spielberg over Spielberg's 8mm collection? I can't recall the details but some current 'hot' director as a teenager had some connection to Spielberg over this... I think...

The other issue, which I whole heartedly support is the democratization of the means of production for film... The costs of Film film, led the media to be pretty much an exclusive 'right' of those who had families of some means, if they were given 8mm cameras as children... the other way to film making, at least as a director, was years of working in the trades and eventually rising to some level. There were of course exceptions...

My response to 'crappy clips' is to make suggestions as to how it can be better, to the extent that I can... rather than fall back on 'the industry is going to hell in a handbasket'... or a frequent enough 'piece of dubious advice'... 'hire a professional'...

Hollywood hires professionals, once budgets are funded... It is my belief that most people who post/participate on this and similar fora, do not have 'funding' and so would not have money to pay professionals... unless the pro can be convinced to work pro bono.

The alternative of course is to work towards some goal of quality, and learn how to get as best as possible given one's circumstances...
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
Vision2 is the older stuff. I'm sure they are likely only making VisionIII now that the VisionIII line has multiple flavors. Since film stock has a shelf life, I'd say they are just trying to clear out leftover stock. I'll increase my concern for ailing Kodak when the firesale of VisionIII happens.
Click to expand...

Ah, that makes sense.

BTW, as an aside, ever since I went to the Kodak website and copied the above links, I now have Kodak laser printer and ink refill ads posted in my windows everywhere I go on the web. Oh boy, "Big Brother" is not only watching... he is dead set on selling you sh*t!
 
David G. Smith said:
Ah, that makes sense.

BTW, as an aside, ever since I went to the Kodak website and copied the above links, I now have Kodak laser printer and ink refill ads posted in my windows everywhere I go on the web. Oh boy, "Big Brother" is not only watching... he is dead set on selling you sh*t!
Click to expand...

I'd recommend clearing out your 'cookies'... because it sounds like a cookie was set that basically announces to the world that 'you like Kodak'... There are also some javascript 'holes' that allowed the site to 'look in your history'... but these may have been plugged up...
 
There's something you get with film that you don't get with digital.

But obviously, it wasn't enough for enough people.
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
I'd recommend clearing out your 'cookies'... because it sounds like a cookie was set that basically announces to the world that 'you like Kodak'... There are also some javascript 'holes' that allowed the site to 'look in your history'... but these may have been plugged up...
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, I know. I kind of like seeing the Kodak yellow banner on my travels around the internet... I just wish it wasn't for their consumer products. I always forget to clear my "Cookies" on a regular basis.
 
David Jimerson said:
There's something you get with film that you don't get with digital.

But obviously, it wasn't enough for enough people.
Click to expand...

In the end it's all about the $$$ and profit increases for every company. artists aren't running these corporations; greedy folk seeking to add trillions to their billions make those calls. Celluloid film and digital mediums to me are totally different, even though they accomplish the same purpose. It's not like film is outdated; I've heard of 35mm blown up to 70mm looking incedible. So the issue isnt quality, it's just money sadly. Well, maybe some wealthy philanthropists in the film or oil industry will pool together money to save film...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top