Kodak continues to produce Film :)

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Kodak is reputed (as in, I've seen and read some of the studies in the literature, but it's been decades and I don't have any idea where to find it now) to have actually produced a neutral color negative film. As in, really, really, neutral -- no color casts at all. A nearly exact match to nature. And... no one liked it. And I mean zero people liked it. In double blind tests, it never won.

When I first started printing my B&W stills, being a US photographer pretty much meant that I went out and bought a box of Kodak papers. At the time I was a member of a cooperative lab, and saw a number of other people printing and getting a 'blacker' black, which to me looked good... but the Kodak paper always seemed to be 'warm/browntwinge', ostensibly based on 'market research'... I switched to Ilford which is what the other people were using. The last paper I used was Oriental's "Seagull"... never went back to Kodak. At the time I was actively printing, I did not meet any one who used Kodak B&W papers.

The Wife shot Kodak color for years, but after using Fuji for a test shoot in the late 80's, she switched... and when Fuji came out with a DSLR we bought into their S series at the time... for some reason their 'color' balance appealed to us.

 

[niki]

if we're talking motion picture, t.v. and commercials…kodak is everywhere…also for starting a show reel…cheaper than an alexa and post…and stunning images that people (clients) connect to emotionally..

 

[David W. Jones]

if we're talking motion picture, t.v. and commercials…kodak is everywhere…also for starting a show reel…cheaper than an alexa and post…and stunning images that people (clients) connect to emotionally..

I don't know where you are getting that shooting film is cheaper than shooting with an Alexa?

I happen to know from personal experience that shooting 35mm film vs shooting Alexa on an equivalent project, that film takes more time and money. We rent an Alexa for a week each month for a particular client that we formerly shot on 35mm. Seriously, the client is super happy with the time and money they save getting their project to air. And the image from the Alexa looks great.

 

[jamedia.uk]

This thread is cursed or something. Everyone is saying basically the same thing but act like there are two sides and are arguing with each other.

Film is very fine.
But video is nearly there.
Plus it's easier and cheaper.
So most people now use video.
But still some people use film.
And probably always will.
The end.

It is the penultimate line that is the problem there.

The point that the film advocates miss is that it needs and industrial process and factories to make film. The problem is we are very near the point where, no matter the artistic viewpoint, the accountants and businessmen owning the factories that produce film are going to close them down for pure business reasons. In fact several big (former ) film producing companies have already done that.

The only discussion is whether there will be enough volume of film usage in the future for any commercial production of film. It is looking unlikely as all the high volume of film users have stopped.

 

[flinty]

While the term may have been popularized recently, there has always been manufacturer's differences in how their respective color materials responded, and some people preferred Kodak over Fuji, or vice versa, for that difference.

Canon 'color science' for their DSLR cameras have always had a tendency to have a 'yellow cast'... don't know why... other than the Canon engineers 'like it' and the Canon customers like it... Early on the digital Nikons had a 'purpleish/violet' twinge. etc...

While these may be 'graded' out, they have a tendency to have residual effects, especially when trying to match cameras.

Strange i moved from a Canon DSLR to a GH2 but disliked the overall yellow color look so i went back to Canon which i would say is more red orienteted

 

[Matthew W Phillips]

I don't know where you are getting that shooting film is cheaper than shooting with an Alexa?

I happen to know from personal experience that shooting 35mm film vs shooting Alexa on an equivalent project, that film takes more time and money. We rent an Alexa for a week each month for a particular client that we formerly shot on 35mm. Seriously, the client is super happy with the time and money they save getting their project to air. And the image from the Alexa looks great.

One would have to have a mighty high ratio indeed for the Alexa to be cheaper...I would say an irresponsibly high ratio. But if that is the case, I guess they should shoot Alexa (or maybe not shoot at all but rehearse instead!)

 

[David W. Jones]

The client pays a 3 day rental for the week. We get the entire XT kit & zooms for $3K.

That $3K would buy what, about an hour 1/2 of film. How many 10 hour days do you think that would cover?

 

[16mman]

One of the cool things I recently discovered is that shooting with a Canon DSLR is a very similar experience to shooting with an Eclair 16mm camera in film school. You've got the same basic controls, similar lenses etc. That's what's so cool about video tech these days. It so closely mimics motion picture tech. If film went extinct I'd be sad but I wouldn't be heartbroken.

That being said, when I want to shoot a super quirky or spooky short film, I often turn to 16mm and Super 8 because there's a quality to it that takes a lot of work to get in post. I'm talking about the grain, the jitters, the flares between takes. It's all doable in digital but there's something magical to me about just letting the light sensitive chemicals, dust and a poorly maintained vintage camera equipment do their thing. I think that film is quickly becoming a "special effect." Companies like Pro8mm cater especially to Hollywood productions that need a 1960's newsreel or creepy home movie footage. Maybe that's how the medium will survive.

Steve Daniels is a good example of what I'm talking about. He uses Super 8 film for a very particular kind of short film style. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv5RoMxGAbE

 

[David W. Jones]

One of the cool things I recently discovered is that shooting with a Canon DSLR is a very similar experience to shooting with an Eclair 16mm camera in film school

Really? In my mind they are a wee bit different.

Here is an old pic of me shooting with one of my 5 Eclairs from many years ago.

 

[Matthew W Phillips]

The client pays a 3 day rental for the week. We get the entire XT kit & zooms for $3K.

That $3K would buy what, about an hour 1/2 of film. How many 10 hour days do you think that would cover?

Where are you getting a complete Alexa kit and glass for $3k a week? Most houses I have seen are $1,500/day with no glass.

 

[David W. Jones]

Turnabout deal for giving them a great rate on my Epic when they were without a camera. They throw in the glass since they don't shoot that week.

 

[Matthew W Phillips]

Turnabout deal for giving them a great rate on my Epic when they were without a camera. They throw in the glass since they don't shoot that week.

Ok, so you admit your deal is not typical. Therefore, your previous statement about the Alexa being cheaper is invalid. For YOU, it is cheaper but not in general.

 

[David W. Jones]

No, we were still paying $3k for a week renting the original Alexa, but using our Cooke zoom.

If you search there are plenty of places that will do a 3 day week.

For what it's worth, we had our own in-house lab and telecine to keep film costs down, but even then things had gotten to the point where clients didn't want to pocket the expense. And frankly, modern digital cameras have gotten to the point where they are really very good. Look at Roger Deakins work with the Alexa as an example.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

No, we were still paying $3k for a week renting the original Alexa, but using our Cooke zoom.

If you search there are plenty of places that will do a 3 day week.

For what it's worth, we had our own in-house lab and telecine to keep film costs down, but even then things had gotten to the point where clients didn't want to pocket the expense. And frankly, modern digital cameras have gotten to the point where they are really very good. Look at Roger Deakins work with the Alexa as an example.

A random search yields one place in Culver City that has $700/day for an Alexa, and on their web page one could get a camera + some lenses for about 1K a day. There was also a week option at about $2100.

Ablecine wanted to submit a list for a quote... so not as quick an estimate...

As it is... I'll not be in this bracket any time soon...

One of our group just bought a C100, amazing what single+fullyEmployedHightech paychecks provide... and we shot with it in a low light situation Monday. I want to do more tests with it, but at the moment the use of ISO 1250 seems to have been ok. I believe it still produces an '8-bit' image stream... And needless to say, no one would ante up for 'film costs'...

 

[16mman]

Really? In my mind they are a wee bit different.

Here is an old pic of me shooting with one of my 5 Eclairs from many years ago.

Nice. I have a big soft spot for those cameras, even though the ones we had at our school were noisy as hell and we had to cover them with coats just to try to save the audio : ) Here's a photo of me with one of the little buggers.



Yes, I know I'm left eyed. It was a real pain cramming my face in between the viewfinder and magazine : P

As I've looked at this discussion from all angles, I think what's really going on is a difference in equipment. I think shooting on film can be cheaper if you're shooting something short and very well planned out, and you're using lower end equipment like 16mm film and an Eclair for instance. But if you want to shoot 35mm on a premium camera, in an attempt to match modern digital cinema tech, it's probably not going to save you any cash.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

As I've looked at this discussion from all angles, I think what's really going on is a difference in equipment. I think shooting on film can be cheaper if you're shooting something short and very well planned out, and you're using lower end equipment like 16mm film and an Eclair for instance. But if you want to shoot 35mm on a premium camera, in an attempt to match modern digital cinema tech, it's probably not going to save you any cash.

I think film vs digital becomes less of a cost thing as the budget increases to the point were Film film is << 10% of the budget for a production.

For my current 'group', which has about 3 projects that are active, if we had a 5:1 shooting to eventual film output ratio, for our '5 minute' films for say 16mm, which would be about 200 feet of final film, with the 5:1, then we would need 1000' for each short film. Sleuthing out the price of say, Vision 3 500T, one finds that perhaps the cost of 1000' would be about $400...

I don't know... is 50 cents a foot a reasonable price for processing film to digital transfer... for people who don't have 'miles of film' type discounts... or even 'student' prices...

So, add another $500, so it would be about $900 to pay for Film film, for the 1000' of 'raw' footage, or about $4 per foot to produce a finished 5 minute film.

And since we have 3 projects... that would be about $3000 for our group... just for the film stock.

Since no one has a Film film camera we would have to rent, is $400/day good for a ARRI-mumble-foo+lens package?

And say our films take 3 days each of shooting... that would $1200 per film for camera, or $3600 for our 3 films.

So, now we are running about $6600 for our films if we shot on Film film...

I think we could divide that $6600 by 3 and almost afford to by a GH-4 outright for each film, SD cards from Costco for about $20, and get shooting.

Now, if we were the idle rich, and could afford to pour say $100K in to our little projects... sure $6K is only 6% of that budget, why not get to for the 'film burn' feeling...

 

[combatentropy]

Summary:

1. Video on the cheap (DSLR) is cheaper than film on the cheap (16mm, used gear).

2. Video on the high end (Alexa) isn't much cheaper, if at all, than film on the high end (35mm) and sometimes more expensive than film on the cheap (16mm, used gear).

3. For the disciplined and experienced film person, film may be preferable on certain kinds of productions.

4. Film has a guaranteed, out-of-the-box film look, whereas video can be made to look like film as long as you're somewhat careful while shooting and do the right things in post.

5. For distribution, video's cheaper, because you don't have to print and ship millions of feet of 35mm film. So Hollywood went that way, for distribution. For acquisition, though, it's a fraction of a Hollywood film budget either way, so are the studios pressing directors to shoot digitally?

6. Some of us will use film until the day we die. We will find scraps or niche suppliers or make it in our basements, and you can have our old film cameras when you pry them from our cold, lifeless hands.

7. Regardless of what we use now or later, film will always have a special place in our hearts.

 

[David W. Jones]

You film guys need to buy my last Bolex & lenses.

 

[Matthew W Phillips]

You film guys need to buy my last Bolex & lenses.

Link to ad?

 

[jamedia.uk]

Summary:
2. Video on the high end (Alexa) isn't much cheaper, if at all, than film on the high end (35mm) and sometimes more expensive than film on the cheap (16mm, used gear).


6. Some of us will use film until the day we die. We will find scraps or niche suppliers or make it in our basements, and you can have our old film cameras when you pry them from our cold, lifeless hands.

.

re point 2 I thought we had already decided that high end film is 70mm and 35mm film is not the high quality end.

re point 6 I accept many want to use film to the day they die BUT unexposed film has a shelf life and soon no one will make it any more. Also you can NOT make it in your basement. That is the whole point of this discussion.

Film REQUIRES AN INDUSTRIAL PROCESS AND A FACTORY to make it. The *businessmen* (not artists/filmmakers ) who own the factories look at the bottom line are (have been) pulling the plugs.

Factories that make film are being closed as film usage plummets.
There are no new users of film (in any significant numbers).
Those who were using film are either going digital or retiring/dying off

At some point in the next few years (2015/6?) There will not be enough on-going film use to justify the last film plant. Then when the stock run out or the shelf life expires there will be no more film.

The situation is more critical than many realise. At the moment you can still get 120 roll film for still cameras etc because when they make the 5 mile runs of 2 yard wide film it can be cut into any format of film.

So when the last factory goes it means that no only no more 35mm or 70mm film for movies but no more film for still cameras. Those of us who still have a collection of old still cameras with non 35mm film formats are going to discover that film for those has gone as well... :-(

However it will still be possible to knock up 8*10 glass plates in the garage for as long as people produce sheets of glass and the chemicals are available. Phonographic glass plates, unlike film, do not need an industrial process and can be knocked up at home in the basement (with suitable ventilation!

As I keep saying this has Nothing to do with the look, ethics, ethos or quality of film. Simply the cold hard facts on the economics of production of the stock. No matter what a Director thinks it is the suits with the money (who are not in the movie business) who will close the factories.