8mm Forum: Good news from Kodak

This is topic Good news from Kodak 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=002568

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on June 07, 2013, 05:51 AM:

http://motion.kodak.com/motion/About/News/2013/Jun03_1.htm

Posted by Pasquale DAlessio (Member # 2052) on June 07, 2013, 06:06 AM:

Great news! [Wink]

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on June 07, 2013, 07:18 AM:

Celluloid lives on!

I wonder if part of the deal was a growing backlash against digital, which has turned out to be not quite as greated as it was stated to be.

Posted by Vidar Olavesen (Member # 3354) on June 07, 2013, 07:22 AM:

I really hope so ... Would be awesome to get 35mm back into the cinemas, but that's hoping for too much I guess. But at least if the films are shot in 35mm, there's hope for the industri still

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on June 07, 2013, 08:23 AM:

Excellent - when I read the title "Good news from Kodak" I feared it must be an old thread from years ago that had been revived! It's encouraging to see that the deal is with the studios, as some people have expressed their fears that the impending end of 35mm distribution (it's not dead yet - a significant minority of films are still being printed on 35mm) would lead to increasing pressure on the film-makers who like film to switch to digital, although I can't imagine that 35mm film stock represents more than a very small fraction of the budget of a typical feature.

Posted by Pasquale DAlessio (Member # 2052) on June 07, 2013, 09:26 AM:

The digital special effects (CGI) cost way more than special effects on 35mm film. That may be a huge factor in the film company's decision. Plus it looks just as good as CGI if not better when it's done properly.

Posted by Allan Broadfield (Member # 2298) on June 07, 2013, 11:32 AM:

I think Kodak are refering to negative stock.
I'm one of the many film technicians made redundant by digital in the UK. Most cinemas are now using digital technology, and grow by the day. They aren't going to revert to 35mm in a hurry. Many film makers still prefer to shoot on film, but the demand for film prints will be very small. Most of the remaining 35mm prints you may see have already been through the digital process and transfered back to film.

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on June 07, 2013, 11:58 AM:

This will just be to archive their film, as digital is an unknown
quantity, but will remain in cinemas for projection.
There was an interesting item on the BBC News yesterday concerning the "Drive in" cinemas in the US,where there are only
250 in existence at present.One of the chaps interviewed, forecast
that by the end of the year they'll all be put out of business.
This is a very sad state of affairs,as this form of viewing is mainly
an American tradition, and as such should be held onto.Change
is not always for the best.

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on 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]

). 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. [Smile]

Posted by Hal Dickens (Member # 3661) on June 07, 2013, 11:11 PM:

When I was a kid my parents took us to the Drive-In every weekend to see movies. What a great time I had!

Posted by David M. Ballew (Member # 1818) on June 09, 2013, 04:59 AM:

Just two or three weeks ago, I took my girlfriend to the Vineland Drive-In, in City of Industry, California.

We saw "42" and "Oblivion."

I know I must be a real, dyed-in-the-wool movie buff (and a bit of a Boy Scout) because ALL my girlfriend and I did at the drive-in was WATCH THE MOVIES. O:-)

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on 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 [Smile]

I love and respect those guys and their way of thinking! [Smile]

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]

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.

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on June 09, 2013, 06:44 PM:

There's a lot of sense in what you're saying Rob,and one can't
stand in the way of progress,but it's a crying shame when folks
are thrown away that had their livelyhoods in all the many facets
of film, from production of it,through using and screening same.Skills that once are gone,will never be available again.

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on June 09, 2013, 07:46 PM:

The two Drive-Ins that I know are both converting over at considerable expense, but many others and many local hardtop theaters that are now just barely profitable are going out of business because they can't climb the digital conversion hill.

All around the world this will make the difference between small towns having a movie theater and just another defunct business.

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on 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!]

)

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]

And this, I fear, is where most decisions get made these days.

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on 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.

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on June 09, 2013, 08:22 PM:

Adrian, I do understand your concerns with regard to digital failure in an auditorium, and quite frankly, many cinema chains attitude just to refund upon failure is deplorable to people like us.

But I'm not sure about your concerns with picture quality (when it works!) why will it, albeit grain free and razor sharp, be "artificial"?

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2