David W. Jones
Veteran
No, many of us were using crystal sync motors on our MOS cameras as well. There were a couple of companies making aftermarket motors.
Kodak continues to produce Film :)
- Thread starter >Edward<
- Start date
roxics
Veteran
Indeed. I remember thinking about buying one for an Arri S.
Matthew W Phillips
Active member
Almost a year since you wrote this and film is still here. Imagine that.
jamedia.uk
Well-known member
I understood that Kodak had 3 years worth of film stock when they closed the plant. So almost a year on from when DW Jones wrote the comment above that they have a couple of years worth of film left they probably have just over 2 years worth left.... imagine that.
Actually they have more than two years worth due to the continuing decline in film use. So it remains to be seen if all the film stock is used or they end up with a pile of it that is past it's "use by" date. So come back in 2 & 1/2 years time and lest see where film is....
What I suspect will happen is that soon there will be just one acetate plant in Asia or China that produces ALL the film for all the major players to OEM. Film for still and movie use. At least for a few years until it stops being commercially viable. At that point film will stop.
After that it will become lomography, only for the eccentric wealthy.
Film is effectively dead for the general population now other than the odd student or eccentric enthusiast.
We are approaching critical mass needed to warrant any acetate plant for film production. Kodak have baled already, as have others. If Kodak need anymore (unlikely) as I said the whole world will use one acetate plant and rebadge the film. Film won't completely disappear but it will get rare and very expensive. Too expensive for normal commercial use.
Actually they have more than two years worth due to the continuing decline in film use. So it remains to be seen if all the film stock is used or they end up with a pile of it that is past it's "use by" date. So come back in 2 & 1/2 years time and lest see where film is....
What I suspect will happen is that soon there will be just one acetate plant in Asia or China that produces ALL the film for all the major players to OEM. Film for still and movie use. At least for a few years until it stops being commercially viable. At that point film will stop.
After that it will become lomography, only for the eccentric wealthy.
Film is effectively dead for the general population now other than the odd student or eccentric enthusiast.
We are approaching critical mass needed to warrant any acetate plant for film production. Kodak have baled already, as have others. If Kodak need anymore (unlikely) as I said the whole world will use one acetate plant and rebadge the film. Film won't completely disappear but it will get rare and very expensive. Too expensive for normal commercial use.
Last edited:
Matthew W Phillips
Active member
Who cares? JJ Abrams seems to like it for the new SW movie. Film hasn't been common for the general population for motion picture work in...? Probably before I was born.
Face it, big pics will continue to be made on film by some for the foreseeable future. And as long as they are, someone will keep making the celluloid for them.
jamedia.uk
Well-known member
In the short term a *FEW* big pics may be made with film. However when the stocks run out, in the next 2-5 years, and there is no one making film stock it will not be cost effective to restart a manufacturing process for the odd one or two big pics (assuming the machinery still exists). Film is dead, or at least heading for it's terminal breath in the next 3-5 years. Live with it.
The problem is film requires an industrial process and a factory to make it. No one can afford to mothball a plant and jut run it when some one wants to make a big pic. It simply won't be cost effective. Besides the industry is moving to the far more flexible working that digital offers. Also of course many in the industry will never have used film anyway.
Besides all the hardware like cameras and developing kit will start disappearing. I know that most stills dark rooms are ending up in skips because they have zero resale value at flea markets or anywhere else. No one wants them and rather than being stored they are becoming land fill. The other problem is spares like the specialised batteries, light bulbs and other consumables will start to dissapear.
Certainly in the UK 99% of cinemas can only run digital these days. All the film projectors have long gone (distribution is by high speed network).
Once things reach a certain tipping point to is a rapid one way street. Film for both stills and video has passed that tipping point.
Matthew W Phillips
Active member
So now it is 2-5 years? A year ago it was a year or two. Way to move the target in the middle of shooting.
Matthew W Phillips
Active member
Odd...I did a quick search of imdb of films that are in cinemas, or will be soon and I saw more than 1 or 2. And this is just a small segment of time I am looking at:
The Immigrant
Chinese Puzzle
Half of a Yellow Sun
The Other Woman
Edge of Tomorrow
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Fading Gigolo
your move?
jamedia.uk
Well-known member
My understanding was that when Kodak stopped their plant they said they had enough stock for 3 years. So there are still 2 years left to run. However if as seems apparent film use declines faster, for may varied reasons, the stock could last longer.
I used to see lists like this being discussed by stills photographers to claim 35mm film was not dead. Yet the 3 major distributors of 35mm still film in the UK said that their film sales had dropped by 95% in the last 15 years. Of the remaining 5% most was in universities where the old lectures like to teach it. However most universities are now moving from film to digital and getting rid of their dark rooms so they expect 3mm still film to drop to 1% of the market 15 years ago. At which point they will stop selling it.
For moving images as with still photography whole sections of the industry are exclusively digital now and Hollywood is the last major user of film. Bollywood, the worlds largest producer of movies seems to have only had a brief filtration with film and went straight to digital.
So while t a few still cling to the ways they are used to you will find that the vast majority of movies are digital and the number on film will decline and therefor no one is going to make any more film stock... they make film stock for commercial reasons not for love of art.
It will get to a point in a couple of years time where the added expense to using film (because you will have to have the stock specially made) will preclude it for 99% of pictures. Added to which the number or film editors etc will also start to dwindle.
BTW what *percentage* of the of *NEW* movies are shot on film? I think you will find year on year that percentage has been dropping at an exponential rate.
Put a note in your diary and come back to this thread in 2 years time then we will see who is more correct.
Matthew W Phillips
Active member
The first mistake you make here is assuming that the UK is all that relevant. With all due respect, you guys just aren't very influential to the film industry. Even some of your own like Phil Rhodes and Freya Black would definitely agree with that statement.
Percentage of films dropping? Well yeah. No one is denying that. But film once held 100% of the market so of course the rise of digital as an alternative is going to cut it down from that. Competition is always going to divide market share more than no competition.
But from my study, there are more wide release movies shot on film than on RED cameras (One, Epic, Dragon) and film is losing only to Alexa. Does that mean that I can also declare the RED as a dying company? I honestly think they will die out before film. The Alexa is the best right now that is bringing everyone down except for the lowest budget stuff. Blackmagic should take that sector if the DSLR shooters ever get it through their heads that BMPCC looks light years better than the t3i, 5d, whatever.
But I will come back here in a few years and I think it will be you, not I, that will be surprised at what has transpired. Remember, the RED One was supposed to kill film right? hahaha
jamedia.uk
Well-known member
Re
"The first mistake you make here is assuming that the UK is all that relevant. With all due respect, you guys just aren't very influential to the film industry. Even some of your own like Phil Rhodes and Freya Black would definitely agree with that statement."
You are not correct that the UK is not a big influencer but we will let that pass. The main global movie production centre is Bollywood (Asia) that is the big influencer and that AFAIK is all digital. BTW a lot of "3rd world" countries who have only recently moved form the 18th the 21st century did not have the legacy and history so jumped in with modern technology. Thus many industries in emerging countries are ahead of many of the established N.American and European companies.
What I was illustrating is the trends. About the *only* place film is still used is to any extent is in the Hollywood movie area and that, film's last market, is declining.
RED is just one company as is Kodak However the comment at the start of this thread was that Kodak had an exclusive (?) license to supply the Big Hollywood studios with film for the next three years. Kodak have indicated that as they have enough film stock to supply Hollywood (who are the only substantial user of film) for the term of the contract, 3 years and thus closed their last acetate plant. This would suggest three things.
1 Kodak is only looking at the Big Hollywood Studios as users of film (in any quantity) all the other markets having gone digital.
2 They don't need any more stock than "3 years supply".
3 They don't intend to replace used stock (so they clearly don't see a future after the 3 years) Otherwise it means a new plant.
So if as you suggest film will continue Kodak will stop production but maintain their acetate plant. However if they decommission it and or sell it then it is clear that Kodak (or whoever owns them) do not intend to restart film production and after the years (2 years remaining) there will be no more Kodak movie film.
The only other option is as I suggested a single plant "somewhere in the world" [where it is cheap to run] that produces OEM film for all the well known film labels. Economically it is the only option. the "art" is irrelevant when it comes down to venture capitalists and share holders looking at the bottom line.
"The first mistake you make here is assuming that the UK is all that relevant. With all due respect, you guys just aren't very influential to the film industry. Even some of your own like Phil Rhodes and Freya Black would definitely agree with that statement."
You are not correct that the UK is not a big influencer but we will let that pass. The main global movie production centre is Bollywood (Asia) that is the big influencer and that AFAIK is all digital. BTW a lot of "3rd world" countries who have only recently moved form the 18th the 21st century did not have the legacy and history so jumped in with modern technology. Thus many industries in emerging countries are ahead of many of the established N.American and European companies.
What I was illustrating is the trends. About the *only* place film is still used is to any extent is in the Hollywood movie area and that, film's last market, is declining.
RED is just one company as is Kodak However the comment at the start of this thread was that Kodak had an exclusive (?) license to supply the Big Hollywood studios with film for the next three years. Kodak have indicated that as they have enough film stock to supply Hollywood (who are the only substantial user of film) for the term of the contract, 3 years and thus closed their last acetate plant. This would suggest three things.
1 Kodak is only looking at the Big Hollywood Studios as users of film (in any quantity) all the other markets having gone digital.
2 They don't need any more stock than "3 years supply".
3 They don't intend to replace used stock (so they clearly don't see a future after the 3 years) Otherwise it means a new plant.
So if as you suggest film will continue Kodak will stop production but maintain their acetate plant. However if they decommission it and or sell it then it is clear that Kodak (or whoever owns them) do not intend to restart film production and after the years (2 years remaining) there will be no more Kodak movie film.
The only other option is as I suggested a single plant "somewhere in the world" [where it is cheap to run] that produces OEM film for all the well known film labels. Economically it is the only option. the "art" is irrelevant when it comes down to venture capitalists and share holders looking at the bottom line.
Bruce Watson
Veteran
Unless your "foreseeable future" ends in 2015, why would you think that?
Kodak was literally the "last man standing" in cinema film. Fuji quit a few years sooner. Kodak was both the quality leader and the cost leader, which is just what the economists predict will happen. The last plant making buggy whips made awesome buggy whips. Happens in every industry that dies off. In this case, the last plant making cinema film (and, as someone on this thread has brought up a couple of times, the acetate base also) made the amazingly awesome Vision3 films. Best the world has seen.
The big user of film wasn't capture -- it was distribution. A single print for a single screen used to cost in the range of $2000 to make. Distribution via DCP can be less than 10 percent of that. Which is why the industry is moving toward digital projection as fast as they can. And it's this collapse of film distribution that's killed film production.
With color film production, you need a coating line that's like five stories tall, takes up an entire city block, and takes multiple dozens of highly skilled and experienced operators to run. If they don't have enough work to keep these people employed 40 hours a week, why would they keep trying to make film? If you were one of the employees, would you be willing to only work four days a week? Three? Probably not. And if you were Kodak management, would you be trying to train "replacement" workers for a industry that's already standing on the edge of the precipice? Probably not.
So what has to happen is, when the demand won't keep a full shift of workers employed, the line has to be shut down. And nothing is going to be able to restart it, if those highly skilled and highly experienced operators scatter to the four winds. Which has likely already happened.
I'm just sayin' that cinema film isn't coming back. No matter what famous director might want it to.
jamedia.uk
Well-known member
Distribution, certainly in the UK and AFAIK most of Europe first went to hard disc drives then to a dedicated network. The Head office can update all the "films" in all of their multiplex cinemas at the flick of a switch. No film needed. There are no film projectors in any mainstream cinemas in the UK. There are a few specialist cinemas that still have film projectors but not for the averaged cinema going public. Also they only tend to be showing the cult, art house and "classic" (i.e. old) movies. Not new movies. So any movie for the mass market shot on film MUST be digitised if it is to be distributed in Europe and many other parts of the world.
So why shoot a movie on film if it is to be digitised anyway? Especially if you need CGI.
So as noted above by Bruce no matter what the artistic merits are, or the desires of the Directors the use of film *HAS ALREADY* fallen below critical mass to the point where no one is producing film stock any more. When the stocks run out that is it. Apparently this will be 2015. However if film usage falls off faster than expected the stock might stretch into 2016 or even 2017. Though that will be because no "big" film makers are using it.
So why shoot a movie on film if it is to be digitised anyway? Especially if you need CGI.
So as noted above by Bruce no matter what the artistic merits are, or the desires of the Directors the use of film *HAS ALREADY* fallen below critical mass to the point where no one is producing film stock any more. When the stocks run out that is it. Apparently this will be 2015. However if film usage falls off faster than expected the stock might stretch into 2016 or even 2017. Though that will be because no "big" film makers are using it.
Matthew W Phillips
Active member
Are you entirely sure about this? Im from California but I am quite sure that I had some friends across the pond who say that Wittner is stepping in where Kodak left off. Can you confirm or deny this?
Matthew W Phillips
Active member
According to this article, Kodak still plans to continue to make film despite closing down the acetate plant.
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/06/14/kodak-to-stop-making-cellulose-acetate-for-film/
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/06/14/kodak-to-stop-making-cellulose-acetate-for-film/
jamedia.uk
Well-known member
I think it proves my point “We have years worth of inventory that we have built up and we are looking at options for external supply beyond that,” Basically they have [3] years worth of stock and when that goes *if they need it* they will use an external supplier. As I said it will end up with one plant probably in China or Asia OEM'ing for "everyone".
However as the writing is on the wall and about the only place that still uses film is Hollywood (which is second to Bollywood interns of movie production) and even then *ALL* movies shot on film have to be converted to digital for distribution (if not post production) why would film continue?
However as the writing is on the wall and about the only place that still uses film is Hollywood (which is second to Bollywood interns of movie production) and even then *ALL* movies shot on film have to be converted to digital for distribution (if not post production) why would film continue?
all Wittner does is cut and perforate raw 35mm stills film from Fuji for use with 16mm and super8 cameras (with a big fat mark-up in price)
they're one of 4 of 5 company's to do this and despite the relatively high price it's a pretty good product.
However, there's no way this has a long term future; Fuji will sooner or later pull the plug on their stills film manufacturing just like they did with their motion picture film.
even if Fuji decided to commit to continue supporting photographic film they've been known to suddenly stop the supply of film to re-sellers like Wittner over very minor issues
Matthew W Phillips
Active member
You're right. Film cannot possibly live in a world where people put easy, quick, and cheap above quality. But while it's here, I'm going to shoot it. You mad brah?
jamedia.uk
Well-known member
IT has been that way for most things since forever. However I am confused about the "quality" If film was that much better quality why have a lot of areas where quality is paramount and the cost irrelevant gone digital (I don't just mean movies). I have a friend in digital imaging, only a part of his work is in it visible light spectrum ( he does, among other things satellites, UAV's LIDAR etc) . He said about 5 years ago digital had surpassed film in all areas on *quality* of image and that is an empirical fact.
As for the subjective (colour and tone) quality I note that for stills Dxo has been producing a "film pack" add-on to it's RAW converter that can replicate the colours, tone grain etc of a couple of dozen (still) film types including cross processing. So digital car replicate the look and feel of film.
So what is the unique quality in film that can't be replicated in digital?
The cost of the raw materials?
The problems of distribution and storage?
The shelf life?
The loss of quality with every copy?
Apart from some emotional ties with film (which I can fully understand, I have it with other things) in the cold light of day film has had its day. It will disappear in 3-5 years possibly except for a couple of every expensive suppliers who will do still film (Lomography?) . It will be far to expensive to use for a big hollywood style movie.
The other problem as people have discovered with stills is that the related equipment will disappear. Already commercial developers/processors for still film have virtually gone. You can't find bulbs and spares for (35mm still) projectors or super8 projectors. I see hone dark rooms going in the skip as not one wants them (even for free). It does not take long when the main market shifts for the support infrastructure to also disappear.
BTW there is now a whole generation of photographers and videographers how have never used film.
What ever the attraction of film it is not quality.
Matthew W Phillips
Active member
So now you say film has low quality? I am no longer responding to you because it is obvious you are trolling. Digital surpass film? Show me a digitally shot film that compares to Lawrence of Arabia.
/thread