|
Author
|
Topic: Good news from Kodak
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Adsett
Film God
Posts: 5003
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted June 07, 2013 01:54 PM
How right you are Hugh. I can tell you that there is nothing in this world like a drive in movie. I spent many years living in the Allegheny mountains in central Pennsylvania. The town where we lived, Williamsport, had two great drive in theaters (both are still operating ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ). My wife and I used to go a lot and they were great. Imagine sitting in the front seat of a 1963 Chevrolet Impala Sports Coupe, on a warm June evening, with mountain fresh air blowing through the car, and watching Goldfinger on that big screen in the meadow. It was that good.
--------------------
The best of all worlds- 8mm, super 8mm, 9.5mm, and HD Digital Projection,
Elmo GS1200 f1.0 2-blade
Eumig S938 Stereo f1.0 Ektar
Panasonic PT-AE4000U digital pj
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Young.
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1633
From: Cheshire, U.K.
Registered: Dec 2003
|
posted June 09, 2013 03:39 PM
Allan and Hugh are right.
Film stock is still used as an originating medium because many working in the industry still regard the flexibility and look of it as opposed to digital capture, but certainly here in the UK, where much TV drama for example used to be 16mm capture, that attitude is now pretty much dead in the face of digital capture.
With regard to theatrical (35mm, etc.), many pros are still just more used to dealing with film as an on-set / location capture medium. Also, many productions are just more economical to use existing quality cameras which run film as opposed to re-investing in digital. And some DPs really love the look of using Panavison lenses...lol I love and respect those guys and their way of thinking!
After that, it is pretty much all digital nowadays, with the neg being scanned to digital and then handled, edited, manipulated, etc. in a digital form.
I'm still just about on the side of film as an originating camera medium, but these days it is pointless to argue about any further stage with regard to handling film, as digital formats are now more than capable of taking camera originals and offering them to the further creative processes in a way which older film duplication methods cannot compete.
So for now, we still have film as an originating medium and an archival one, for scanning the finished product onto archival film remains the safest way to store product at the moment. But this is a rather complicated issue, with many contradictory and valid views each way.
So film exists for now, but no longer the way we once experienced it; as a much duplicated version of the original camera negative until it finally arrived in our local theatre.
And actually, in terms of quality, that is no bad thing. There are no longer problems with quality regarding post-production / release of movies when comparing film vs. digital, given the right equipment.
I think there is still an issue regarding content though!!! ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I think it is fine to be sentimental when new formats arrive and offer financial incentive to the "bosses", in the face of job loss on the ground, and a fundamental reduction in quality, but when new formats do reach a quality level which exceed the preceding formats, it is time to accept the benefits.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Young.
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1633
From: Cheshire, U.K.
Registered: Dec 2003
|
posted June 09, 2013 08:06 PM
Absolutely, Hugh, and at the risk of bordering upon politics here...
The art / science of the artificial moving image has required the constant use of many skills since its invention.
Now let's face it, it really hasn't been around that long.
And I, for one, was never happy just to pick up a camera and "use" it for my primary gain...to make a "movie".
I wanted to know how it worked. And I went to college to find out. Of course, almost the moment I understood it all, I was out-dated. 1993 I finished my Diploma with a distinction in Photographic Technology...totally useless as digital was already all the rage.
But my attitude was, b******s to this, I now know how a photograph works in every possible way, so if someone wants to re-invent the wheel, bring them on!
Three years later, I finished my degree, fully aware of how to load and expose professional film cameras...like anyone cared by then!!!
In this computer age, big companies sold us new technologies, such as Photoshop. At first, I resisted, because I wanted a proper dark room at home... full of swirling chemicals and red lights and magic.
Then, I realised that when I began to use Photoshop, it was designed by like-minded, photo-chemical based people.
That's why I love it. It was re-inventing the wheel after all. But it was built and designed by people like me, with my sort of appreciation, and without the chemical mess.
I know I'm rambling, but my point is, it is the purpose of human nature to re-invent the wheel and make money out of it, and sometimes it works and sometimes it don't.
About 18 months ago, as a freelance cameraman, I had to move from digital tape to solid state high-definition...and I resented it fully, not least because of the cost implications.
But now I've become accustomed to it, and realised the potential, I absolutely love it and would never, ever, want to go back. (Although my Bank Manager would!!! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) )
Point is, when you are re-inventing technology for new generations, there isn't actually a need to get rid of anybody, because everyone's experience and knowledge can make a new, potentially better product, well, better.
But then if you want to pay an experienced person, who can genuinely make your business flourish & train, young, enthusiastic people...or alternatively, save some bottom line by using young, enthusiastic, but desperate kids...give them no training what so ever and send them to the wolves.
Now we're talking "management".
Usually thick "educated" management people.
Who rule the world.
And don't even know how a toilet flushes.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
And this, I fear, is where most decisions get made these days.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adrian Winchester
Film God
Posts: 2941
From: Croydon, London, UK
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted June 09, 2013 08:13 PM
There has been speculation here with regard the usage of film Kodak are referring to but it's stated in the article: "Kodak is honored to continue supporting Fox and their content creation, distribution and archival needs.” I'm sure we all agree that in the longer term, "distribution" will no longer apply, but it's currently relevant as (e.g.) 'The Internship' - a Fox film released in July - will be available on 35mm.
Regarding Rob's words on accepting the benefits of digital, I'd acknowledge it does have attributes and can look excellent, but there are 'cons' as well as pros: e.g. reliability, with far more on-screen digital problems due to picture freezing, formats going haywire, etc, than applied to 35mm. And I can also do without the artificial, razor sharp, grain-free look that will become increasingly common.
--------------------
Adrian Winchester
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
