8mm Forum: Real Film Is Not Dead

This is topic Real Film Is Not Dead in forum General Yak at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=002042

Posted by Jerome Sutter (Member # 2346) on January 23, 2012, 04:31 PM:

Here is a very interesting topic:

Real Film Is Not Dead: http://www.dailynews.com/moviesandtv/ci_19796282

Posted by Thomas Dafnides (Member # 1851) on January 23, 2012, 07:54 PM:

Excellent article.

Posted by Allan Broadfield (Member # 2298) on January 24, 2012, 05:38 AM:

I would like to be as optimistic as the article implies, but as one of many film workers on the production side in the UK who have been made redundant due to the demise of film, the evidence around me is one of almost total collapse.

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on January 24, 2012, 08:14 AM:

It's a nice article but the facts are, for all intents and purposes, film is on the way out.

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on January 24, 2012, 08:56 AM:

The really sad thing is that Kodak owns hundreds, if not thousands, of patents on digital photography and printing. This is now their greatest asset, which they plan to sell off.
In this environment it is hard to believe that they will continue producing super 8 film, and may (God forbid) have to cease production of 35mm film.
Sad days for film lovers. [Frown]

Posted by Thomas Dafnides (Member # 1851) on January 25, 2012, 07:50 PM:

The article made a valid and strong case, that in 2012, film remains the only true archival medium. This is why since the 1980's, the major TV networks have archived many of their prime programs (shot on video) onto film.
In light of this, I see film manufacturing for decades into the future.

Posted by Allan Broadfield (Member # 2298) on January 26, 2012, 04:07 AM:

Tom, interesting point of view, but as one who has been involved in the transfer of nitrate to acetate filmstock for a certain country's film archive, I have to point out that this has now been switched to digital because of the prevailing situation. This can make sense partly for reasons of storage space, and because the transfer of digital back to film, if required, is very easy today.When a feature film is made these days it is normaly edited in digital form and film negatives are made from that digital form for cinemas that require prints. The odds are that the last real film you saw at the cinema has actually been transfered back from digital.

Posted by Thomas Dafnides (Member # 1851) on January 30, 2012, 10:03 PM:

Allan,
In what digital format/ storage material are they archiving in? And how are these stored? What type of containers?
I remember reading an in depth scientific article that said that any dvd/blu ray disc stored in a plastic album eventually deteriorates from the gases emitted by the plastic container, itself. I find that most people in the video industry are completely, oblivious to this.

[ January 31, 2012, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: Thomas Dafnides ]

Posted by Allan Broadfield (Member # 2298) on January 31, 2012, 04:25 AM:

I'm no longer involved with this or any other project due to being made redundant, with many others, due to the move from film. Whichever form the storage takes, it's a fact of life that whatever medium films are made in today, it will more than likely go into digital at the editing stage. I know that the argument is that digital technology is constantly changing, but that won't stop it happening, and even film deteriorates in time.

Posted by Gerald Santana (Member # 2362) on February 09, 2012, 02:05 PM:

BREAKING NEWS FOLKS!

Rather than start a new topic on this subject, let's keep it going here:

Kodak pulls an about-face, kills digital to keep film alive!

Read it and weep Mr. Pixel...

"Less than a month after announcing that it would seek bankruptcy protection in the US, Kodak has announced that it will stop the production of digital cameras and picture frames, as well as pocket-size video cameras."

http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2145203/kodak-phases-digital-businesses-film-alive

Posted by Colin Robert Hunt (Member # 433) on February 09, 2012, 02:47 PM:

Sorry Allen to hear of your redundancy. I myself have been uneployed for the last 4 years apart from short temporary contracts, not in the film industry I must add. I wish you all my best wishes to your future. I find it's very bleak out there on the job market.

Posted by Thomas Murin, Jr. (Member # 1745) on February 09, 2012, 03:40 PM:

Sorry to burst your bubble, Gerald, but this article clarifies the digital situation:

http://www.rbj.net/article.asp?size=3&aID=190308

Posted by Allan Broadfield (Member # 2298) on February 09, 2012, 04:28 PM:

Thanks Colin, hard times, I know. As regards film, I'm lucky that I reached retirement about the same time our film lab stopped production of film prints, in fact I got another year in before it got serious. 35mm has had a good innings, going back to the 1890's, in fact it was the general opinion when I joined the industry in 1959 that film was soon to be on the way out, and some type of video technology would take over eventually, though producing a large size cinema presentation was regarded as sci-fi stuff.
Good luck to you, too, hope things improve for you.

Posted by Thomas Dafnides (Member # 1851) on March 05, 2012, 07:36 PM:

According to this article (thanks Claus), the major Hollywood studios still archive shot-on-digital productions and archive them
on 3 strip film for "100 year life".

http://www.theasc.com/blog/2012/02/13/the-digital-dilemma-2-dilemma/

Posted by David Michael Leugers (Member # 166) on March 11, 2012, 12:17 AM:

My two sons were born shortly after the video revolution (early 1980s). I shot all my home movies of them growing up on film. I got lots of laughs from people who thought I was a relic. Today I have a great film library of my kids from the time they were born.
Several family members who shot video back then literally have nothing to show. The tapes have all become unplayable mostly due to fall out so bad it clogs the heads of the machine. Many were recorded over by accident or misidentified and tossed. Film you can literally stuff in a box and store it for decades, pull it out and view it. Digital still cameras same problem. Who is archiving the thousands of mindless pics now being taken daily on their Iphones? We are losing it. So is Hollywood but maybe that is a good thing...

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on March 11, 2012, 01:00 AM:

Lately on the radio some crowd are advertising a transfer service for your old home movies to dvd saying "before its to late". Now I thought they were talking "film", the usual stuff you hear, but no. Its those old home movies they refer to that your parents took "video tape" that is. [Roll Eyes]

I can still remember something similar being said years ago about you must transfer home movies "film wise" to video tape "or else", now its video to dvd.

And so it goes on, with all that rubbish about transfer "or else", is that your home movies shot on "film" has held up really well over the years and still looks great. All you need is a good projector and those films will still last well after the latest electronic marvel has turned to dust. [Smile]

My biggest mistake back in the early 90s was the move to home movies taken on video tape. The fact is, had I continued with film and spent the money on that instead of a video camera it would have been a lot better in the long run.

I still take video but also make a point of shooting film as well thats if I want it to last.

Graham.

Posted by Allan Broadfield (Member # 2298) on March 11, 2012, 04:56 AM:

Acting as devil's advocate, it's true that many filmakers prefer to scource from film because it's what they know, but film companies have never been shy of clearing space in their archives and film takes a lot of it up. Three strip preserves colour perfectly,as it originates from b/w panchro stock, but that's three rolls of neg for each reel stored and a lot of that went west in the past. Most of those wonderful old classics (that didn't go missing) could only be revived with digital help, because each strip will often shrink at different rates. As far as other neg types go, the colour does often fade and can only be bought back digitally.
I still have two 8mm cameras, but where will I get the film processed? There are still labs hanging on, but most people will go for the easy option of digital, which will inevitably put them out of business.

[ March 11, 2012, 06:52 AM: Message edited by: Allan Broadfield ]

Posted by Jerome Sutter (Member # 2346) on March 11, 2012, 10:56 AM:

Excellent post David, also the Library of Congress only accepts film to archive their motion pictures. They do not accept digital.

Posted by David Michael Leugers (Member # 166) on March 11, 2012, 01:06 PM:

In the past year I was honored to transfer some color R-8mm home movies for a great guy in his 70's. The movies were of him as a baby (before WWII) on up until he was about teenage. The films were on original reels and cans from the 40's and the earliest films were over 70 years old. I attached new leader (you can still buy it from Kodak) cleaned and lubed the film with Filmrenew, got great transfers of all the footage without problem. He was going to show his kids and grand kids this precious footage, most had never seen it. Priceless... I still shoot anything important to me on film including stills.

Posted by Stuart Fyvie (Member # 38) on March 11, 2012, 03:20 PM:

The ONLY long term archive format that exists as present are B&W separation masters on 35mm film. Guaranteed 100 years stored in dry conditions.

Stuart

Posted by Allan Broadfield (Member # 2298) on March 13, 2012, 04:47 PM:

Some of these three strips masters have already deteriorated, unfortunately, in a good deal less time than 100 years.
Furthermore, Martin Scorcese remarked in a documentary on film preservation that modern colour negs, which had been heralded as stable, were already experiencing drop off in their colour layers. Ideal storage conditions may well help save these treasures for some time, but the biggest enemy is human nature, when monetary considerations are taken into account, they may consider the space more valuable than the contents.

[ March 14, 2012, 11:13 AM: Message edited by: Allan Broadfield ]

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on June 04, 2012, 02:52 PM:

Kodak used to boast that their movie film would still have good
colour in 100 years time.We are at present celebrating our
Queen in the UK and I've just watched Prince Charles dig out
the Family home movies and show them, in a television doc.even he remarked on the excellent colour which it was,of their home
movies,some filmed by Her Majesty herself,as she was a keen
cinematographer, and this was before the Coronation.When it comes to reversal film I think Kodak have kept their word.

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on June 04, 2012, 04:38 PM:

I agree Hugh. My 8mm Kodachrome films from 60 years ago look like they just came back from processing. The scary thing is, nobody really knows how long DVD's and Blu Rays will really last.

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on June 04, 2012, 05:21 PM:

That's a very good point Paul,I read somewhere that if you write on the disc with a marker pen,it can affect the layer underneath
and so spoil the recording.The bottom line is that film is tried
and tested plus it's universal.Lets face it,putting a video of your
holiday or whatever into the dvd is a commonplace occurence,
putting your film through a projector to view, is an occasion all
present enjoy as there are no distractions and the screen is the
focus of attention,

Posted by Bryan Chernick (Member # 1998) on June 04, 2012, 05:48 PM:

I just came across some 8mm home movies from 1937 that are still holding their color like they were filmed yesterday. I have a lot of Kodachrome from the 1940's and 1950's that are the same way. I hope the new film I'm using holds it's color that well.

Posted by Thomas Dafnides (Member # 1851) on June 07, 2012, 08:04 PM:

I believe at some point in the near future , there will be technological break thrus that will result in new low cost film emulsions and film manufacturing processes , that will dramatically, bring down the expense of film and bring forth a new age for film.
We can now synthesize gold in a the laboratory (although of yet, not cost effective with mined gold)...how long before we can do the same with silver halides or somthing even more light sensitive?

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2