8mm Forum: Great report on increasing use of film

This is topic Great report on increasing use of film 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=003953

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on May 20, 2016, 11:24 AM:

Great news about the rapidly increasing use of Kodak motion picture stock here, and even a mention of pre-orders concerning their new Super 8 camera:
www.shootonline.com/news/kodak-film-make-mark-cannes-slated-do-same-ny-new-lab

Posted by Dave Groves (Member # 4685) on May 20, 2016, 11:44 AM:

Makes great reading knowing that all the expertise behind the manufacturing and processing of film is going to be available for all who wish to use it. Wonder if this will encourage any sizable shift back to 35mm for exhibition?

Posted by John Hourigan (Member # 111) on May 20, 2016, 03:47 PM:

I personally doubt there will be a wholesale shift to 35mm exhibition, particularly given the business economics involved.

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on May 20, 2016, 04:12 PM:

"The January 2016 announcement of Kodak’s new Super 8 camera struck a chord not only with the industry but with consumers. On day one of the launch at this year’s Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, Kodak’s Super 8 camera out-trended the event itself on social media and more than 5,000 people have signed up to pre-order." Waw

Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 892) on May 20, 2016, 04:22 PM:

I'm really glad they mentioned that three of the "micro-budget" features were also projected on film. Let's see more of that!

In 2015, having 100 major features shot on 35mm is an impressive number. Unfortunately there were few opportunities to see them on film, and it's even worse now.

Posted by Raleigh M. Christopher (Member # 5209) on May 20, 2016, 04:27 PM:

This is great, but, movies need to be *projected* on film, as well as shot on film. Prints need to be made.

Posted by John Hourigan (Member # 111) on May 20, 2016, 06:32 PM:

Sorry Raleigh, but the economics are just not there anymore for the wide-scale production, distribution and projection of film prints in cinemas as it was in the past. We have to remember it's a business.

While I love film, I'm glad to see cinemas put more effort and money into making the theatre-going experience much more enjoyable, including plush recliners, food delivered to your seat, and much larger screens. I actually enjoy going to the movies now! It's certainly much better than the ratty, and downright gross, theater experience -- including sticky floors, beat-up film prints, etc. -- of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. And the picture quality today, even with my "film eyes," is absolutely stunning.

I, for one, wouldn't want to go back to the way things were -- actually, I find I go to the movies now much more than I did even five years ago.

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on May 20, 2016, 06:49 PM:

John, I still go to the movie but the magic feel isn't there anymore. I find it back at home and when I'm lucky to attend reals projections like at the 9.5 French Club or in the UK at the BFCC or at the Get Together 9.5 (I'm sure I would love Cinesea). Altough most of the 9.5 films are over 50 years old, nothing can beat the experience of seeing them projected as they should, with a cine projector. I cannot deny the picture of digital projections is in most cases (but there are exceptions !) good or very good but it's not, for me, cinema. There is one thing I hate in the modern "cinema" : the mobile phones. I don't know how it is in other countries but in Belgium it's such a nuisance that often you don't enjoy what's on the screen because you're distracted by the little screen light of people texting in the dark (you're Lucky when they don't answer during the film !). France has resisted better but it seems that things are becoming the same (at least at Paris) when you see a "commercial" film. The audience seem more respectful when watching an "artistic" film but for how long ?

Posted by John Hourigan (Member # 111) on May 20, 2016, 07:16 PM:

To each his own, Dominique, but the theatre exhibition industry has to make money to be in business, and it's not going to return to a now unprofitable format just to satiate a handful of people whose only criteria seems to be this nebulous "magic" that they feel, no matter the quality of the resulting film print image. Don't get me wrong, I've been film collecting since 1971, but to reject the new methods of projecting movies just because it's not how it was done 100-plus years ago seems short-sighted to me, particularly when the theatre-going experience is now undeniably much better than it used to be.

Posted by Raleigh M. Christopher (Member # 5209) on May 20, 2016, 10:50 PM:

Wow. I totally disagree with you. Movie going today is a joke. You're just watching giant screen television. Big screens? Seriously? The Ziegfield here in NYC just shut down. Theatres don't even know what curtains are anymore. Gotta bombard you with ads and TV commercials before the show, you know. Showmanship be damned. Food delivered to your seat? No thank you, don't want it. Love seats? Don't want that either. I got that in my living room, and I certainly don't want to be sitting next to someone eating their dinner á la Alamo Drafthouse either.

The movie going experience is better than it used to be? Hardly. It's the worst it's ever been. I went to see Hateful Eight because it was shot and projected on film. Love seats and dinner and a giant screen TV I can do myself at home.

Posted by John Hourigan (Member # 111) on May 20, 2016, 11:05 PM:

Wow -- The theatre experience you're describing is not at all what I'm experiencing in Colorado -- new theatres have sprung up, and provide plenty of room so that you're not sitting on top of each other (like cinemas of the past). The screens are huge, much bigger than the multiplex nightmares of 40 years ago. And the images are clean, sharp, and impressive --- and, heck, I started my professional career working in film.

Don't let a hardcore "film for film's sake" attitude be a detriment or hindrance to enjoying all that's out there -- life is much too short for that.

Posted by Raleigh M. Christopher (Member # 5209) on May 20, 2016, 11:43 PM:

I don't like what's out there. I don't like digital. I don't like these desperate things theater chains are doing to replicate your living room, because cinema attendance has fallen so drastically. I also don't like Hollywood Industrial product.'Transformers 109 and Hulk vs. Antman ad nauseeum. And LIMEAX. And 3D slapped on everthing. Mainstream commercial cinema screens are smaller, today, not bigger. And they have no curtains, or some even proper masking. Just show it letterbox, like a big screen TV! Luckily, I live in NYC where I have options. Like MOMI, FilmLinc, Film Forum, BAM Cinematek, Anthology Film Archives and the beautiful new Metrograph. NYC is a big cinephile town.

Posted by Tom Spielman (Member # 5352) on May 21, 2016, 01:29 AM:

I like that movie theaters have gotten more comfortable in recent history. I like that they're trying new things like serving food at your seats. What I don't like is how expensive it's gotten to take the family to the movies. For that reason (and others) I think one of the best movie experiences in the area is a local 2nd run theater. Matinees are $2.00 and popcorn is reasonable too. It's a single screen neighborhood theater that has retained it's mid-century decor. Love that place.

I was also lucky growing up to be not far from one of the three Cooper Cinerama theaters in the country. They had extra wide and deeply curved screens. Movies were projected by three cameras. Was so sad when that place was torn down.

Film will survive but will continue to become less common as the current crop of directors and producers start getting replaced by people who grew up in the digital age. A few might appreciate film because it has a different feel than digital. Most audiences however, don't care about how the images were captured or how they are projected. They care about what is being projected.

I will say that for me there is some real magic with film that doesn't exist with digital images. I'm a computer guy and have a computer science degree. There's a lot of impressive mathematics and computing horsepower behind digital images. Some really awesome stuff is possible and it's getting better all the time. At the same time, I know just enough that it's not really magic for me. Those tiny images on a strip of film are what's magic. The chemical and mechanical processes used to create them are nothing short of amazing. Few people realize how good even a tiny super 8 image really is.

Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on May 21, 2016, 02:36 AM:

I think the shooting of films on real film is an absolute winner.

As I`ve said before the best thing you can do now is shoot on 70/65mm as when you move that over to digital in the cinema or the home the look is fantastic.

But film projectionists who were able to do a decent job with 35mm prints were getting very few and far between, and if in scope, blimey !!!

I think as long as the screen is big and the sound good it still is real cinema and the shared experiance of emotions or laughs etc etc, but I`ve never been a fan of eating or talking ( except the odd quick whisper of say " this is good " ) in the cinema.

Best Mark.

Posted by Lindsay Morris (Member # 3812) on May 21, 2016, 04:26 AM:

You certainly will not see a general swing back to using film in commercial cinemas because as others have pointed out they are running a business.
The digital conversion costs per screen are NOT cheap & whilst first run cinemas got a good deal from the Studios to encourage them to convert in the form of almost a subsidy per first release the smaller sub run sites were on their own.

I have just sold & retired from my outdoor cinema having had to make the agonizing decision to either demolish the site or demolish my bank account.
[Big Grin]

I chose the latter & was VERY glad that I did as the best part regarding digital, from a sub run perspective, is that almost as soon as a movie was released I was able to book it to screen within 4 weeks of it opening & KNOW for sure that I WOULD get a copy to run. NEVER could that be done with film as the prints had to stay at whatever venue was running it.
Whereas with digital the hard drives once ingested at the various venues went back to the depot so the film bookers knew with absolute certainty that Cinema X COULD have Movie X on the date that they wanted it.
Made programming a breeze & thus able to display posters & run the trailers which brought more bums on seats..loved it.

Also was so much easier to put together a program which is virtually drag & drop to build a playlist which allowed automated functions such as fine tuning of sound levels for EVERY clip, control of lighting,lens format changes anywhere you liked.
Thus once a play list is assembled & saved one only had to drop that into a schedule & providing the projector/server were turned on the system started & stopped screenings whenever you told it to do so.

Plus FAR Better image on screen, focus is spot on every time, NO dirt or scratches, NO blips in the sound at each reel change due to hacked about starts & ends of the reels & so on.

Made my job so much easier & made the business far more viable.

What I bought came equipped with Dolby 3D & that looked stunning in an outdoor venue & all in all after many years of running 35mm gear I will take digital every time.
Personally I really cannot see that much of a difference between film & digital if it is setup accurately with correct colour rendering which is a mix of Red, Blue & Green light so CAN be way out and look like crap.

As the system IS computer based the usual Computer foibles CAN & DO creep in. I had a corrupted screen advert file once that made me cancel a weekends sessions & was a fair bugger to find.
It crashed the server so hard that one had to reboot from cold TWICE to clear out the system to get it stable & reliable.
But gear is getting far better & even solid state HDD are becoming quite common & load way faster than the older types.

Although when major things go wrong it is NOT as easy to fix as 35mm gear was as any competent operator could do almost anything on the machines to get a show back onto the sheet.
Digital NOT so easy at all. [Smile]

From a business standpoint I cannot see any cinema going back to film unless for special events but now there are very few 35mm plants left as most have been junked.

But for home cinema use I still love film be it S8, 16 or 35mm.

Posted by Raleigh M. Christopher (Member # 5209) on May 21, 2016, 06:39 AM:

quote:
Plus FAR Better image on screen, focus is spot on every time, NO dirt or scratches, NO blips in the sound at each reel change due to hacked about starts & ends of the reels & so on

See, I have a totally different point of view on this. I would rather watch a real film with a scratch line down one side for dirt or blips then that palsticky "perfection" of digital. Now, mind you, my taste in Cinema is NOT Hollywood. My taste runs to foreign, avant-garde, experimental, independent, and classic cinema. This is why I'm lucky to have the plethora of options I have in New York where these types of films are shown on a regular basis, and on real film. Metrograph shows eveything on film. They're equipped for DCP, but it's used only when nessecary.

A classic old film, projected on film, that's nearly pristine is great, to be sure. I saw a 35mm print of Brian DePalma's "Carrie" recently that looked AMAZING. It might as well have been opening weekend 1976. It was that pristine overall. But watching an old film complete with snaps, crackles, pops, some dirt or scratches here or there, cue dots, what have you, does not distract from my enjoyment whatsoever. It's all part of it. Like a sculpture or painting that's survived wars, and thefts, or has a chunk missing etc. That's all part of the history and uniqueness of the work. A perfect copy, that can be digitally reproduced into 1000 perfect copies, has no soul.

See Walter Benjamin's "The Work of Art in The Age of Mechanical Reproduction"

http://ada.evergreen.edu/~arunc/texts/frankfurt/benjamin/benjamin.pdf

(Edited for spelling and typos)

[ May 22, 2016, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: Raleigh M. Christopher ]

Posted by Dave Groves (Member # 4685) on May 21, 2016, 07:54 AM:

It sounds to me, Raleigh, that you're comparing personal preference with Cinema business. That's absolutely fine and you should go on enjoying what you enjoy, but sadly the modern day cinema audience knows nothing of film versus digital and as long as they get what they paid for they'll come away happy. I've been a film man all my life but the quality of digital is amazing. The problem is I've lived long enough to watch films in dedicated cinemas which were usually full with people who, generally, were well behaved, didn't look at mobiles, and didn't want their dinner while the film was running. Showmanship was the order of the day with curtains, footlights, music and the magic of the night. We didn't have loads of scratched films and it didn't cost the earth to go three times a week. Todays Cinema experience is different and the modern audience doesn't know how different. I shall carry on running my projectors and remembering the days long gone while, at the same time, enjoying the occasional digital fodder that appeals to the older audience.

Posted by Raleigh M. Christopher (Member # 5209) on May 21, 2016, 08:38 AM:

You're right, it is my preference. I hate the look of digital video, and don't get why some people think it looks so "great". To me it looks horrible. Plastic.

But my question is, if it's so great and the masses are fine with it, and love sofas and dinner in the cinema, then why has cinema attendance tanked to the degree it has? I can tell you why. Not only is there no more creativity or originality in the world of cinema "business" (Hollywood and it's foreign counterparts), but you'e not gettimg anything you can't get at home, that's why.

Also things like this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/movies/in-x-men-apocalyp se-and-captain-america-superheroes-versus-movie-stars.html

Posted by John Hourigan (Member # 111) on May 21, 2016, 10:58 AM:

I guess I just don't understand the vitriol, Raleigh. In my 45-plus years in the hobby, I never thought I'd be achieving such stunning images and sound as I do now in my home cinema. Recently I've screened The Revenant, In The Heart Of The Sea, and The Hateful 8, among others, with a print and sound quality that I would never be able to achieve with Super 8. And believe me, with my critical and professional eye, the resulting picture and sound quality far surpasses and doesn't resemble a television viewing experience. In fact, I waited all these years (decades) to spend money to build a home cinema once I thought the picture and sound quality merited it, and today it does.

After all these years, it's been an absolute pleasure to enjoy the shared experience of actually watching the movie with family and friends, rather than be in the back constantly fiddling with the film projector. This doesn't mean I don't enjoy my Super 8 films, I do, but let's face it, the titles that are (legitimately) available on Super 8 are the same ones that have been in circulation for 30, 40, 50 years. Being in the hobby for over 40 years, I'm absolutely thrilled to have access to and be able to screen the whole host of recently released movies and arcane older films that today's technology affords. It has increased my enjoyment in the hobby ten-fold, and the same audiences who attended my earlier Super 8 screenings are now even more enthusiastic to come to my home cinema for movie nights. Isn't that's what it's all about anyway, sharing the fun of screening movies with others?

Unfortunately, I see some people on this and other boards who seem to have needlessly overly stressed themselves about format solely for the sake of format, to the point of being pedantic. I'd say let it go and enjoy it all -- there's never been a better time to be in the movie screening hobby!

Posted by William Olson (Member # 2083) on May 21, 2016, 11:33 AM:

Sadly, widespread 35mm exhibition is a thing of the past. This makes independent theaters that exhibit 35mm more vital than ever. Hopefully, film and digital will co-exist for both production and exhibition. The audio CD and subsequent digital audio formats overtook analog audio decades ago. However, analog audio never went away. Vinyl devotees are legion, vinyl has made a comeback and a whole new generation is discovering and embracing vinyl. Let's hope the same holds true for film.

Posted by Tom Spielman (Member # 5352) on May 21, 2016, 12:56 PM:

There's no doubt digital has been boon to both content creators and consumers. It levels the playing field. You don't need to have a huge equipment budget for capturing and editing. As a consumer, you have an enormous library of titles to choose from, anytime, anywhere. Whether you like modern fare, the classics, indies, or what some kids have put together and distributed on youtube.

However, as with many technology shifts, something is lost too. Going to a movie is not the same experience as it was 15 years ago and 15 years ago it was not the same experience it was 30, 45, 60, or 90 years ago. There's is no doubt though that part of what I appreciate about film has to do with nostalgia rather it being "better".

I shot my first 8mm film back in college the mid 80's. I used my father's wind-up camera. I barely knew what I was doing and the results are what you might expect. It was throwback technology even then. Ironically, digital technology can fix some of those mistakes I made (to a certain degree) way back then.

That was 30 years ago and I'm again looking at shooting some 8mm (super 8 this time). There's a particular reason for that choice and it's because the subjects were captured on 8mm as kids. But I appreciate that other people want to use film for other reasons and I might in the future as well. For that reason I hope it becomes a more viable medium, even if it won't be the dominant one.

Posted by Raleigh M. Christopher (Member # 5209) on May 22, 2016, 09:02 AM:

quote:
I guess I just don't understand the vitriol, Raleigh. In my 45-plus years in the hobby, I never thought I'd be achieving such stunning images and sound as I do now in my home cinema. Recently I've screened The Revenant, In The Heart Of The Sea, and The Hateful 8, among others...

There is definitely a misunderstanding here. My thoughts have nothing to do home exhibition. I haven't said anything about home exhibition. I don't have an issue with Blu-ray discs or DVD's. I had a LaserDisc player in high school, and DVD's and Blu-ray discs are the children and grandchildren of LaserDisc. I loved LaserDisc then, and Blu-ray is it's progeny.

I am talkimg about public exhibition in a cinema setting, as well as production. That is where I have the problem. Nor are my thoughts on the matter about "format for the sake of format". Not by a long shot. I have strong philosophical opinions about film, hence my reference to the Walter Benjamin essay in just one respect.

quote:
There's no doubt digital has been boon to both content creators and consumers. It levels the playing field. You don't need to have a huge equipment budget for capturing and editing. As a consumer, you have an enormous library of titles to choose from, anytime, anywhere. Whether you like modern fare, the classics, indies, or what some kids have put together and distributed on youtube.

I have no issues with Netflix, or renting movies through the iTunes store via my AppleTV.

In terms of "leveling the playing field" I feel that is an overrated argumemt in favor of digital video, for many reasons. Because of digital video and iMovie and FCP and the like, every Tom, Dick, Harry and their Dog now thinks they are the new undiscovered star director. What it has done is just increased the amount of junk being made. It is also a very lazy form of creation, that encourages very bad habits, and in the long run has a detrimental effect on creativity. It's actually this "democratization" that has fed mediocrity. A kid in college was posting in a discussion once saying how he "wanted to be a director" and that if it wasn't for digital video, he couldn't do anything because "film production was too expensive" and he couldn't afford it. I had little sympathy. I basically told him to suck it up and stop crying. Harsh? Maybe. But what did Spielberg, Abrams, and Lucas (the last of which I no longer have any respect for) do? Born long before digital video and NLE in the home on a desktop or laptop existed, how did they succeed? They really wanted it. They found ways. They had to be resourceful, and disciplined. They worked within restraints. They found a way. Everyone deserves access to art, but no one has a right to make a living from it. Art is a luxury. You want to make art? That's great. Noble even. But you don't have the guarantee or right of it being easy. Get a real job, and make your art in your spare time. Budget your money and spend your discretionary income on the supplies you will need. Apply for a grant. If you have a unique voice, or just have something to say, and you become established enough that you can sustain yourself through your art, great! But no one guaratees you that as a a right or that it should or will be easy.

There's been in recent time, an ever growing circle jerk going on over digital video. And with each new "K" format iteration, the participants just cum harder and harder. It's ridiculous. In fact, I'd argue that it's these digital video obsessives, who believe all previous technology is inherently inferior, and all new inherenently superior - and therefore should obviate the "old" - are the ones who argue format or platform for the sake of format or platform.

Digital should be a helper. It should not be a scorched earth, wholesale replacement - such is the extreme that many ignorant and uninformed advocate. Nor is it really the "perfection" they naively believe it to be, over the "imperfect" analog they diminish.

Posted by Ken Finch (Member # 2768) on May 22, 2016, 01:35 PM:

I guess we are a fortunate here in the u.k. in so far as the majority of cinemas although now running digital, do not serve meals to eat in the auditorium, except for the dreaded popcorn. Which incidentally originated from the U.S.A.!! it is regarded as bad manners here not to switch off the mobile phone as requested at the start of each performance. We are not afraid to request any miscreants to comply either. Our local independent cinema in Herne Bay has modern comfortable seats, uses LED screen surround coloured lighting, screen masking and still has the curtains. It actually has 2 auditoriums both seating under 100. Since going digital they have been able to show a very much larger range of films and audiences have increased accordingly. Yes we still have the multiplex chains with the big flat screens and no masking but we still have some traditional cinema buildings in everyday use. Ken Finch.

Posted by William Olson (Member # 2083) on May 22, 2016, 05:07 PM:

Raleigh, you have expressed here what I have been unsuccessfully trying to convey (see "The Romance Is Missing" in General Yak). Thank you for your eloquence.

Posted by Brian Fretwell (Member # 4302) on May 24, 2016, 02:57 PM:

Good news in latest BFI email, they are advertising "
Close Encounters of the Third Kind -
See Steven Spielberg's director's cut on an exclusive, new 35mm print, Fri 27 May - Thu 09 Jun

So they really do believe in their logo "Film Forever" and are keeping 35mm prints alive.

Posted by Tom Spielman (Member # 5352) on May 24, 2016, 03:57 PM:

There are many industry heavyweights that have cut their teeth on film and continue to advocate for its use. You have to wonder though what's going to happen as these people retire and new generations of filmmakers (or moviemakers) take over.

There won't be a wholesale return to film. There will be fewer and fewer cinemas that will be able to project it.

I think the best that can be hoped for is that enough filmmakers will be aware of the aesthetics of film that it will continue to be used here and there in the process of making movies. I believe you lose something when you're not projecting on film as well. However, there are so many advantages to digital that commercial film projection is going to fade away almost completely in my opinion.

Posted by Raleigh M. Christopher (Member # 5209) on May 24, 2016, 04:33 PM:

quote:
Close Encounters of the Third Kind -
See Steven Spielberg's director's cut on an exclusive, new 35mm print, Fri 27 May - Thu 09 Jun

Saw this on 35mm about a month ago at MOMI. Was great.

quote:
I think the best that can be hoped for is that enough filmmakers will be aware of the aesthetics of film that it will continue to be used here and there in the process of making movies. I believe you lose something when you're not projecting on film as well. However, there are so many advantages to digital that commercial film projection is going to fade away almost completely in my opinion.

No, what's happening, IMO, is that real cinema on film is becoming the new "gourmet" and "connoisseur" way to see a film, at higher admission, just like vinyl lp's are now the same, being pressed on 180gram virgin vinyl, and selling at a much higher price point than LP albums did 30-35 years ago.

See http://www.metrograph.com

Indiewire feature about Metrograph

EDIT: Added second link

[ May 24, 2016, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: Raleigh M. Christopher ]

Posted by Tom Spielman (Member # 5352) on May 24, 2016, 07:29 PM:

I guess the question is what is behind the current niche appeal of vinyl and film and how long lasting will it be? Is it just because there's something inherent in them that provides a better experience?

While I do think there *is* something different in both film and vinyl that attracts people, I also think that is only part of why they're currently experiencing a renascence. Another part has to do with being both retro-cool among the younger generation and nostalgic to older generations. Both of those are fleeting.

Edit: with regard to "180 gram virgin vinyl" I do believe that some of that is pure marketing designed to get you to part with more money.

There is nothing about a 180 or 200 gram record that is going to make it sound better than a 120 gram record. The grooves are cut the same. Those albums may be more durable and resistant to warping, but my guess is that most buyers today baby those things anyway. I suppose it's a win-win. The buyers feel they're getting better quality and the distributers can charge more in exchange for providing a little extra plastic.

What is ironic to me about some audiophiles love of vinyl was that vinyl was used for distribution for practical reasons rather than because it delivered the best sound reproduction. Audiophiles back in the 50's and 60's preferred reel to reel over vinyl, but good reproduction and playback required time and expensive equipment for both the distributers and the consumers.

[ May 25, 2016, 12:46 AM: Message edited by: Tom Spielman ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2