Kodak continues to produce Film :)

>Edward<

>Edward<

Member
Hello fellow film-makers, I just read the article which apparently got published today about Kodak getting back on track with their film-production assets. Here's the article: http://motion.kodak.com/motion/About/News/2013/Jun03_1.htm . This is great news, since it means even though it might be exclusively only produced for certain major big folks, we will still have good chances of buying film stock from Kodak, since it won't just disappear. As some of you know, Kodak announced the discontinuation of Motion Picture (coming from them) in the beginning of 2013, probably because of the bankruptcy scenario of Kodak which already started rolling in late 2012. Anyways, this makes me very happy, as I really had problems acquiring film stock at all, as someone who just recently slipped into using Film (or a camera in general). I was actually shocked about that some people stated that Film is not going to be around much longer.... well, Kodak is still around and Agfa has something for us to offer as well, so hurray to the Film-Folks! - HOpe I didn't misread anything in the article (my English sucks bigtime) ~ Ed
 
Sounds like the studios are doing what I'd hoped they'd do: keeping film alive, at least temporarily. Good to hear this, thanks for sharing.

-EMB
 
That is cool. By the way. Kodak did not announce that they were ceasing to produce films stocks in 2013 (As far as I know). That was Fuji.
 
Yes, that's true Fuji discontinued film stock production in March 2013, however Kodak did announce the end of production line for certain types of film (I know that I read on their site that they've already discontinued Slides and various film for still cameras ... :P )
 
hmmm... i dont see it here David. The cost for renting for half way decent digital camera equipment equals the amount of money i would pay for film stock AND development costs at the same time. I am the kind of person who thinks that spending $6k for a real deal film camera instead of $20k for a RED rig (digital image quality), is a way smarter shot. it goes head to head according to my calculations, and guess what , i get to present film footage to the audience instead of color-graded-2-death digital images. - so far there is nothing what actually reasonable explained to me, why film should be off the map ;p
 
biggrin.gif
biggrin.gif
biggrin.gif
http://www.specsavers.co.uk/?gclid=CKXX4MP607cCFdIPtAodMngAEA
 
>Edward< said:
hmmm... i dont see it here David. The cost for renting for half way decent digital camera equipment equals the amount of money i would pay for film stock AND development costs at the same time. I am the kind of person who thinks that spending $6k for a real deal film camera instead of $20k for a RED rig (digital image quality), is a way smarter shot. it goes head to head according to my calculations, and guess what , i get to present film footage to the audience instead of color-graded-2-death digital images. - so far there is nothing what actually reasonable explained to me, why film should be off the map ;p
Click to expand...

Im glad you are so enthusiast about shooting film, but the reality of the matter is you have only just purchased a MOS 16mm camera and have only shoot a couple hundred feet as a test. This is a far cry from shooting a theatre ready 35mm sync sound motion picture. As someone who has worked with film for over 40 years, I know firsthand just how time intensive and expensive it is to produce products which are acquiored on film. Since you are so new to film, I honestly don't think you have a real grasp as to the actual cost to produce a full length feature film. Where are you getting your numbers from? $6K to shoot a movie on film vs $20K Red rental? Where I am located you can buy a used fully kitted out Red One MX for $10K, yes same camera used to shoot Girl With Dragon Tatoo and many other top films. And $6K will not go very far when it comes to producing a feature shot on 35mm film. As far as film vs digital, everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but I'll have to say that having worked with newer cameras like the Arri Alexa has really changed my mind on the subject. The quality, workflow, and expense of shooting with a camera like the Alexa far outweighs any benefit which shooting on film may offer.

All the best!

Dave
 
David W. Jones said:
... $6K to shoot a movie on film vs $20K Red rental? Where I am located you can buy a used fully kitted out Red One MX for $10K...
Click to expand...
No no! You didn't understand. I was not talking about $20k for rental cost... in fact a fully rigged up RED set including lens, mattebox, cage, video tap/LCD viewfinder, follow focus, is around $20k in my country. For $10k I would only get the brand new body (only!). So my 16mm rig cost me around $6k all-together (Why would I need a synch-sound film camera... what is the benfit over using a external Device? My Movie-Slate's beep works fantastic... enough for me to know where to start synching the sound track to the film). - As for the rental, I might have been sloppy explaining it (my apologies). It costs me around 400$ (8 hours of rental) for a RED Scarlett (fully rigged). And this is the best deal I could find here in Vancouver. (EDIT: Now when I shoot for 8 hours I would have to spend $180 for the Film stock (that's four spools.. maybe 8 minutes of locked material... more I wouldn't be able to shoot, since I am not "experienced" enough) and around $150 bucks for the development cost (including telecine transfer)... that is $330 ($70 less than renting a RED rig)...so to "me" it is cheaper to use film.) - And theatre ready 35mm? When I think about the fact that AMC's "the walking dead" got shot on Super16 I don't know why I have to put up with Users saying how crappy 16mm is. Seriously... even The first Season of "Scrubs" and "Sex and the City" got shot on 16mm. - David, from your 40 years of experience compared to my "first 100 feet of s*%tes" I must say I still have a grasp on what is realistic and what not, and I am not just throwing things around which I haven't read about, I always do my homework. -- (EDIT2: I just read the price on a RED Scarlet dropped from $10k down to $8k, just for the brain-module)
 
Last edited:
Super 16mm can produce nice images,i have the walking dead Blu Ray,but the thing i dislike in it is the constantly changing amount of grain,from virtualy none to very grainy,digital films like wolf creek win on quality for me buts thats my opinion and film lovers can disagree without being derogatory to video,it makes me the same to standard 16mm and super 8.
 
From reading the information re Kodak it is a contract to supply... That is when or more importantly *if* the studios use film they will buy it from Kodak. It does not mean the studios will use film. Nor how much film they will use.

I was in Calumet yesterday and asked about film.... they said for still photography the only people using film are a *few* students and a few "hip" people who are using it because it is not mainstream. From their point of view the use of still film has dropped over 95% since 1995. As the universities swap from film to digital on their courses they expect the use of still film to be 1 or 2% of 1995 levels.

As has been noted here movie film use is going the same way. The problem is that when (not if) the big Hollywood and Bollywood* studios stop using film it is going to get to the critical mass point where it becomes uneconomic to produce fill for general use. Then only a few rich people will use film as the numbers drop the costs will rise stopping students and others even starting with film.


*Bollywood produces more films than Hollywood these days.
 
First things first. A sync sound camera is not one which records the sound, but is a film camera which is absolutely quiet, allowing you to record audio without hearing the sound of the film camera running.

Second, what did you end up buying with your $6K budget you spent? Just wondering what $6K buys in 2013 concerning film cameras.

Third. I'm not sure what you are shooting, or where it is going to be shown, but in 2013 both 16mm and Super 16mm film are only acquisition formats, aside from some film festivals which still support 16mm playback. Meaning once you have acquiored your footage it then must be transferred to another format before it can be shown. Which means either 35mm print, or digital. Something else to think about, is the fact that 16mm film is a 4:3 format, and I don't know many people who are still doing only standard definition 4:3 work. Super 16mm film on the other hand is a 16:9 format which blows up better for a modern screen ratio.

Forth. Since you are in Vancouver rather than some third world country, you have access to everything I have access to. Meaning the same deals available on used gear, like a full Red One MX kit for much less than putting together a new Scarlet kit. If I were just shooting films for the big screen I would pick up a kit as they are so cheep now rather than renting.

Fifth. I honestly have to question how you think shooting 4 100' spools of 16mm film over the course of 8 hours, for a total of 10 min of footage, is a good deal? Especially after you factor bad takes into your shooting ratio. In all honesty you will likely only see 2 1/2 min of footage good enough to make the grade out of the 10 min shot. So please explain to me how after shooting for an entire day, having 10 min of raw 16mm footage is more financially sound than having say 4 hours of raw digital footage?

Here is your budget breakdown using the figures you provided.

Film: $40.00 a raw min shooting film

Digital: $1.60 a raw min shooting digital.

That is a huge financial difference when you are shooting a 2 hour feature. Is it not?

All the best!

Dave
 
Last edited:
Oops! I really ignited something.- David I don't mean to upset you or bother you with my stubbornness :P
David W. Jones said:
...Fifth. I honestly have to question how you think shooting 4 100' spools of 16mm film over the course of 8 hours, for a total of 10 min of footage, is a good deal? Especially after you factor bad takes into your shooting ratio. In all honesty you will likely only see 2 1/2 min of footage good enough to make the grade out of the 10 min shot. So please explain to me how after shooting for an entire day, having 10 min of raw 16mm footage is more financially sound than having say 4 hours of raw digital footage?

Here is your budget breakdown using the figures you provided.

Film: $40.00 a raw min shooting film

Digital: $1.60 a raw min shooting digital.

That is a huge financial difference when you are shooting a 2 hour feature. Is it not?
....
Click to expand...
I think if I can get 8 minutes of material over 8 hours, that is pretty good (as you said, since I indeed didn't think about the amount of crap-takes, haha), considering I will be shooting in studio only. My problem, what kills the most time, is our tiny studio location and according to the amount of space, we will need to change the set-layout back and forth for most of the day. And here in Canada things take twice as long as in other place around the globe. But honestly, the script I am writing doesn't involve a lot of dialogues or acting. There's a lot of CGI (green screen cut and what not). Right now I am just a kid sitting in a toy store, overwhelmed by all the things I have to work on and think about. Don't know how accurate my thinking is. I am sure things will be triple the amount of money and time, I was shouting out. haha. -- David, which figures of mine (which I stated) are you referring your comparison to... I don't quite understand how Digital can cost $1.60 a raw minute (like are you considering electricity a valid cost factor? or is it a percentage of value-ofSD-Card + taken-up-space). You might be right, that I will have like one minute of every 100' reel as a keeper... I can live with <50%... But I hope we're gonna be doing better than that.
 
Well Kodak announced they are shutting down their Acetate film base production plant. They apparently have enough already stockpiled to meet the needs of the few still shooting film over the next year or two. More writing on the wall!
 
I believe the plan is to outsource production once their stocks are exhausted. Having the base manufactured overseas at a reduced cost makes good financial sense to me
 
sportique said:
I believe the plan is to outsource production once their stocks are exhausted. Having the base manufactured overseas at a reduced cost makes good financial sense to me
Click to expand...


"Overseas" is relative term. The USA is "overseas" or "foreign" as far as many of us are concerned :-) However to the pertinent point it will be interesting to see where Kodak outsource the production to. I can see that we will end up with one plant in somewhere like China that will make the film for Kodak (and Agfa, Fuji etc etc ) and the ranges of film will get reduced as demand falls. However a single factory for all film globally will give it a longer life than many dispersed factories.
 
While there was something kinda cool about film, I am so glad to never ever have to spool another roll with cold numb hands in a filmbag or tent ever again. And although I enjoyed steak and champagne at the transfers many times, it is so much better just dropping that footage onto some drives and knowing what you've got right away. Also remember, for shows like walking dead, the lenses and cameras they're using are spectacular sharp and expensive units. Once you rent or buy a nice set of Fujinon or Cooke or Arri or whatever glass you need to compete with some converted Zeiss Canon mount primes for a Scarlet, you're gonna be over budget with film. If you have cash to burn, and an aesthetic you'd like to capture that you can only do with film, then go for it, but that is the only reason.
 
To clarify even further, super16 isn't even 16:9 it's 1.67:1 so not as wide. Also aside from a sync sound camera being quieter, it also has a crystal sync motor in it to keep constant speed. When shooting with a MOS camera and recording dialogue separately, your film will go out of sync since it is moving at a variable frame rate, even if you have the camera set to 24fps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top