my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Kodak to get out of the FILM business? (Page 4)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Author Topic: Kodak to get out of the FILM business? John Walsh Film God Posts: 2490 From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way Registered: Oct 1999 posted 02-15-2007 08:45 AM                     Steve wrote: "Oh my god. John we've know each other for some time now and I'm agast that you used the above statement as any argument against 70mm." I know, I know .. I feel a little bad even saying that ... but (my own feeling) except for too few people like us here, no one seems to even want 70mm. The studios don't want it because they simply don't want the hassle on the production side. I don't think all the tools that make 35mm production easier are avaiable for 70mm. On the post-production side, how could a studio do a print run of the 3000 plus prints required nowadays? Then there's the cost of the unenviable print damage and replacement that happens in the first week of release. Mostly, studios want the 'control' digital will give them over the theaters. 'Forget' to send in the rental, you're shut off. Or, the common practice of canceling the showing of a lesser film so you can interlock two auditoriums for the 'big' feature will not be allowed; the manager will have to call and pay a fee for being able to to it. Studios might actually be a little afraid of people finding out how good 70mm is and wanting it. Then they would loose the control they are hoping to gain with digital, so they might trying to keep it 'dead.'. Theater owners think with digital they will eliminate their costs for projectionists (they mostly pay dirt now, so I don't see a savings.) We know 70mm would blow away digital, but it has to be taken care of; digital does not require cleaning after every showing. Also, I think digital projection is being sold to owners as a way to reap all kinds of money from advertising, advertising, rebroadcasting concerts, private business meetings, etc. Renting out the auditorium to project an X-Box game is one way of additional income that's been noted. I agree there are too many theaters, but I don't see any owners saying, "Well, I know my theater is so crappy it drags down the quality of this industry, so I'll close for the good of others." If anyone tries to improve, cheap owners will cry that they are being forced out. (I've noticed that the dumpy-er the theater, the louder the owners are.) When there's an actual interest in watching newly released, full-length features on a cell phone (!) you know that person doesn't care about 70mm. Besides, studios like having too many theaters; gives them major leverage to sell product; "If you don't want it, the guy across the street will." As Bobby H noted; studios sort of want theaters to be the advertising for the home video release.  |  IP: Logged Dennis Benjamin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1445 From: Denton, MD Registered: Feb 2002 posted 02-15-2007 10:08 AM                        I am going to chime in from my point of view: I have seen two films in 70mm: "Top Gun" and "Hoffa". I got to run a 70mm print of "Hoffa" when I worked for National Amusements. Anyways - I remember specifically watching those films. The reason is - the picture quality was awesome. At that time - it was the best movie going experience I had. We live in a very different society now. When I try to explain to the 'average joe' what the difference between 35 and 70 is - they always end up bringing IMAX into the conversation. Which always leads to other conversations. I agree 100% that there will always be a place for 70mm. The only problem is: the people that realize it are the only ones who have seen something in 70mm. All the directors and producers of films who would care are dead or are working on 3-D Digital based films.  |  IP: Logged Dustin Mitchell Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1865 From: Mondovi, WI, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 02-15-2007 10:20 AM                     John, at one time I shared your nightmare vision of studio control over digital projection. I have to say though, that at least as of this moment, its not a reality. The only extra control the studios have over your operation is the inability to play a movie after its finaled (due to expired keys). Even with that if you had a legitimate reason (say a family film finaling on Thursday and a school wanting to do a special show on Friday) I'm sure it would be no problem to get a new/extended key.  |  IP: Logged Richard Fowler Film God Posts: 2392 From: Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA Registered: Jun 2001 posted 02-15-2007 10:40 AM                     In this month's BKTKS British film journal, in their dedicated Digital Cinema supplement, it noted not a noticeable digital penetration until at least 2010. Outside of the USA and the U.K. it appears conversion will average around 50%. Vision Research, which has been building and renting high speed cameras since 1950, introduced early last year their digital studio production cameras. Phantom HD @ 2048x1556 with frame rate up to 700 fps and their 65 model @4096X2440. Response has been so good they sold out their 1st production run. RED, another 4K resolution camera, has 1500 pre-orders and plan to ship this year....more fuel the fire  |  IP: Logged Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 02-15-2007 10:41 AM                        Cost of 70mm print is NOT double. That is for the stock. Most of the cost of a print is labor/shipping/processing. Many charges are by-the-foot, so an increment of 30-45% is more probable. Louis  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 02-15-2007 03:09 PM                     Well, a 70mm print costs way more than double, about 2.5K per 20 min reel last I heard. There is but one lab in the states doing much 70mm(Imax) and they can pretty much dictate the price, or tell you to shove off like I know they have done to at least one production. Then add the double the film stock expense(John P. Posted the exact cost per foot of 35mm vs. 70mm stock here on F-T few years ago and it was exactly double) and another printer pass to expose the DTS track or worse yet the expense of mag stripping and sounding all the reels. Just the cost of letting all those reels sit for a week or longer for the mag coating to cure would cost distribution megabucks in this day and age. Expensive it is and thats part of what makes it so glorious! Mark  |  IP: Logged John Walsh Film God Posts: 2490 From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way Registered: Oct 1999 posted 02-16-2007 07:13 AM                     Let me ask a question: Let's say I was Peter Jackson, and I was in preproduction for 'The Lord of the Rings.' How much more would it cost for the entire film to be 'shot' in 65mm? I am particularly thinking of the additional cost required for all of the digital effects that were needed. How about the aditional cost for effects good enough for 35mm production / 70mm release. The reason I ask is; could the additional cost be one reason studios stay away from 70mm.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 02-16-2007 08:23 AM                     The additional cost of 65mm origination has been figured for a typical feature (search this site for I'm sure it was John P that posted it). In the cost of a feature it amounted to less than 1% of a big-budget feature ($100mil or more). As to the 2X cost...I was only referring to the cost of the stock by the foot, naturally. This is actually relatively cheap since most things in life also factor in how much is used in the world with specialty items costing a premium. Yes, there is 25% more length to the film too which turns the raw stock charge into 2.5X 35mm. Processing would be more expensive too as would shipping. But then again, only 50-100 70mm prints will due for covering the USA rather than 100s to 1000s for 35mm prints so as a percentage 70mm printing and distribution is not that large and can even save over 2.5X in covering those same markets with 35mm, if the studios chose to limit the number of prints in areas covered by 70mm. I also claim that 70mm will increase attendence of any title. Though it would be for another topic...the money spent on "talent" in these major motion pictures is where the real waste on money is. If you look at the biggest money making movies of all time...it wasn't the actor's names that brought the people in. A (small) portion of that money would allow for all of the big-budget films to be shot on 65mm, if the DPs and Directors were up to it (which I suspect is part of the problem). Steve  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 02-16-2007 10:01 AM                     quote: Taking Steves ideal or dream of a 70 mm comeback one step beyond. How about a DTS upgrade to either Blueray or HD Dvd drives with a modern non compressed HD audio codec, (one that might actually be 6 track and could really record say a different music track on each channel if wanted and not just steering logic!) that links off the existing DTS timecode track and is downwardly compatible with the existing CD based system. If we are going to dream! the existing 70mm houses will also be forced to install cup holders to totally complete the ultimate cinema experience! The DTS XD-10 audio playback units can already play formats like uncompressed LPCM 5.1 in 24-bit/96kHz resolution. They can play back any DTS format as well (both "home" CAC and cinema formats). The unit has two DVD-ROM optical drives and a built in hard disc system. It can be hooked up to a 70mm projector. The DTS XD-10 is also a "scalable" playback system. Out of the box it is compatible for up to 8-channel discrete playback. The system can be expanded to handle 10, 12 or more channels of sound. Sadly, Hollywood has done NOTHING to take advantage of the capabilities in the DTS-XD10, much less similar upper end capabilities of handling more channels in new D-Cinema systems. That further underscores the level of importance Hollywood sees in home video and their lack of enthusiasm for the theatrical market.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 02-16-2007 11:37 AM                     quote: Steve Guttag In the cost of a feature it amounted to less than 1% of a big-budget feature ($100mil or more). In reality it is alot more than 1% of a feature's production cost although some might want you to believe its only that much. The LDS Church's last 5/70 film production was shot in 65mm at 30 fps and the cost of the production according to a friend there almost doubled from what the it would have been had it been done in 35mm. Aside from the much higher(at least double) camera and raw stock costs and the slow down in shooting it also creates add to that the amount of extra detail that HAS to be put into sets in order for backgrounds, costumes,makeup, and props not to become obvious to viewers because of the gobs of extra resolution. Cinerama also had this problem when shooting HTWWW and had to re-do a huge amount of costumes because they looked like costumes and not period clothing. Also 65mm cameras are NOT at a point of convenience of operation as are 35mm production cameras even though the newest ones(which are now actually quite old by camera standards) may look similar... and there are just not enough of them available for large productions. A good friend who is a 1st assistant also says 65mm cameras are also more apt to jam and then the shoot can come to a standstill for a day or so while the camera is repaired and film tested. 1% is a nice dream but the extra resolution afforded by a 65mm production will also increase alot of the productions other budgets as well. To calculate exacatly how much a given feature's budget would increase is almost impossible. Mark  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 02-17-2007 12:56 PM                     Of course the level of detail goes up but then if that was the concern shoot it on super 8 and transfer it at least then they can use cardboard sets  |  IP: Logged Ron Curran Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 504 From: Springwood NSW Australia Registered: Feb 2006 posted 02-17-2007 09:06 PM                        Exactly, Gordon. Cheap and Easy is good for customers. On the other side of the ticket window, we are paid to provide a professional, quality experience. We can moan all we like that it’s Too Hard. How long will it be before clients determine that home theatre is cheaper, easier and better? I believe that we exist to make magic. BTW, when the drive-ins here changed to 70/35 machines I think that part of the reason was to get light on those big screens. Surely they would like to get 70mm prints now?  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.