This is topic More Death of Film Re Hash in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=011089

---

Posted by John Rizzo (Member # 1289) on 11-16-2011, 03:24 PM:
 
More good News For Film

http://tinyurl.com/6oz7gl4
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 11-16-2011, 03:58 PM:
 
Text from above story...

-----------

Report: 35mm film will be dead by 2015

Leon Neal / AFP-Getty Images file
By Rosa Golijan

Celluloid 35mm film has been a key fixture in movie theater projection rooms for over 120 years, but — according to one report — its reign will soon be over. Long story short? Digital is in, analog is out, and James Cameron's "Avatar" is to blame.

The folks at the IHS Screen Digest Cinema Intelligence Service report that the beginning of 2012 will "mark the crossover point when digital technology overtakes 35mm." And after that there's no good news for the old format based on the company's predictions:

By the end of 2012, the share of 35mm will decline to 37 percent of global cinema screens, with digital accounting for the remaining 63 percent. This represents a dramatic decline for 35mm, which was used in 68 percent of global cinema screens in 2010. In 2015, 35mm will be used in just 17 percent of global movie screens, relegating it to a niche projection format.

And what's to blame for this shift? According to David Hancock, head of film and cinema research at IHS, the rise of 3-D films got the ball rolling — but the big damage occurred in 2009, when a little movie called "Avatar" hit the screens and digital technology's share of the movie market grew drastically.

Hancock explains that before the movie's release "digital represented only a small portion of the market, accounting for 15 percent of global screens in 2009." But after the movie? Digital technology's share was seen "jumping by 17 percentage points in both 2010 and 2011, compared to the single-digit increases during the previous years."

So what does it all mean? Well, distributors, suppliers and the like will have to carefully manage the transition and keep an eye on supply and demand, for one thing. There will also be a need to digitize existing content as the use of 35mm prints is phased out.

But when it comes to the average movie-goer's perspective? There's no need to worry too much.

In the United States, mainstream 35mm usage will likely end sometime around 2013. In Western Europe, the death of the format is predicted by the end of 2014. And then the rest of the world will follow suit and bid 35mm goodbye by the end of 2015.

At that point we can start singing:
Digital killed the 35mm star
Digital killed the 35mm star
Pixels came and broke your heart
Ooooh-aahh-oh
Ooooo-ahhh-oh

-----------------
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 11-16-2011, 04:12 PM:
 
Because nothing makes a report serious like a lame parody of a 32 year old song by the Buggles
 

---

Posted by John Rizzo (Member # 1289) on 11-16-2011, 07:56 PM:
 
Petition for 35mm Revival Prints

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/fight-for-35mm/
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-17-2011, 04:11 AM:
 
Text from the link above (should be included in any link attachment-it's the forum rules...)

quote:

---

overview
petition

Target: Major Film Studios
Sponsored by: Julia Marchese, New Beverly Cinema

I work at the New Beverly Cinema in Los Angeles, California. We are a repertory double feature house that opened in 1978. We screen films from every decade of cinema - from silents to foreign, independents, art house to contemporary. Films that make-up the glorious history of the art, that should be viewed as they were meant to be - in a theater with fellow film lovers, projected from film.

We only show films on 35mm.

The major film studios have decided that they eventually want to stop renting all archival 35mm film prints entirely because there are so few revival houses left, and because digital is cheap and the cost of storing and shipping prints is high.

I firmly believe that when you go out to the cinema, the film should be shown in 35mm. At the New Beverly, we have never been about making money - a double feature ticket costs only $8. We are passionate about cinema and film lovers. We still use a reel to reel projection system, and our projectionists care dearly about film... checking each print carefully before it screens and monitoring the film as it runs to ensure the best projection possible. With digital screenings, the projectionists will become obsolete and the film will be run by ushers pushing a button - they don't ever have to even enter the theater.

The human touch will be entirely taken away. The New Beverly Cinema tries our hardest to be a timeless establishment that represents the best that the art of cinema has to offer. We want to remain a haven where true film lovers can watch a film as it was meant to be seen - in 35mm. Revival houses perform an undeniable service to movie watchers - a chance to watch films with an audience that would otherwise only be available for home viewing. Film is meant to be a communal experience, and nothing can surpass watching a film with a receptive audience, in a cinema, projected from a film print.

I feel very strongly about this issue and cannot stand idly by and let digital projection destroy the art that I live for. As one voice I cannot change the future, but hopefully if enough film lovers speak up, we can prove to the studios that repertory cinema is important and that we want 35mm to remain available to screen.

---

quote: Monte L Fullmer

---

Digital is here to stay. You don't own this business and this business needs the digital to survive and stay ahead of the game..

---

Which business? Distribution or exhibition?

Distribution might (keyword "might") benefit from the reduction or elimination of film distribution (although I am somewhat skeptical that doing so will actually save any money, at least over the next 5-10 years). But most exhibitors will see no benefit from it, and many theatres will close if new titles are unavailable in 35mm form.
 

---

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 11-17-2011, 06:55 AM:
 
The MSNBC article is worthless, and not just because of the lame Buggles parody. The reader is not given a link to the original story to read and decide for themselves, so we must accept the writer at their word. We are not told who David Hancock is or why we must accept his prediction at his word. But that is neither here nor there, as we already knew all of this.

Truth be told, digital projection in theatres benefits both exhibitors and distributors, although not equally. Audiences benefit because the movie will still look as good in its thousandth run as it did on its first, which benefits the exhibitor with better customer return rates. I know this firsthand from my current theatre. It benefits the largest distribution monoliths, by cutting down on the cost of creating, shipping and maintaining 35mm release prints by the billions of dollars per year, but the switch to digital also benefits the smaller markets houses, by eliminating the need to rush print thousands of 35mm prints if a movie unexpectedly explodes with audiences. (Back in 1997, the three screen theatre I was running in a rural Central California town had to wait four weeks to get a print of Titanic, because the lab could not print them fast enough. Granted, it's a 14 year example, but I speak only from personal experience, since it's the last time I worked at a rural theatre with 35mm.) This in turns helps the smaller market theatre by getting the hit films quicker, instead of seeing those audiences drive to the nearest larger market location. And it also helps the smaller independent distributor, who can get their product out to more theatres quicker, which also in turns helps exhibitors large and small bring in newer product should the grosses of previous releases not turn out as expected. But that takes a larger viewpoint than most people are willing to take.

As for the petition from the New Beverly, it comes as little shock that a theatre owned by a major collector of 35mm prints of shlock titles would be in an uproar over the conversion to digital. The petition really only benefits a handful of theatres like the New Beverly, and will have zero effect in the overall industry. Most repertory theatres do not have a deep pocketed owner like Quentin Tarantino to keep it afloat, and in fact the New Beverly would not exist as it does today had a deep pocketed person like Quentin Tarantino not bought the theatre when he did.
 

---

Posted by Jenn Jennings (Member # 6455) on 11-17-2011, 07:30 AM:
 
This is why I am making a documentary to hopefully educate people (audiences) about what is happening, and to hopefully support their small town theaters that are trying to run film as long as they can. I will be attending the Art House Convergence in Jan. to get some interviews on camera about what is happening. We already interviewed Harvard Film Archive and trying to get more Archive houses out there. Their problem is that even they are having issues getting some prints from other places and have to make a decision of, should they run a blu-ray or nothing at all in hopes that the print will become available one day? There seems to be a lot happening in a very rapid way and I am trying very hard to get this movie done. And yes, I know all about how I should be filming this but I can barely afford to make it digitally and have been forced to be a humbled director in asking for help from others. Grant applications have been going out and I plan to use this film to do fund raisers for theater owners and anything else that will bring a positive light to prolonging the end of film. http://igg.me/p/40793?i=shlk
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-22-2011, 01:25 AM:
 
So how long can film lovers keep saying that audiences need to see the movie "the way it was intended -- on 35mm film," when very soon all movies will be recorded digitally and intended to be shown digitally?

At least 10 years ago I remember posting here that I love the art, not the mechanics....well, yah, I do love the mechanics of film, but that's just emotional; my REAL goal is to present the moviemakers vision. I said way back when, "if you can give me a box that can let me show LAWRENCE OF ARABIA to my audience and give that audience the same goosebump-making experience that I got as a kid watching that film in 70mm, then I don't care what's in the box or how it does it; my goal will have been met.

My initial objection to digital was practically rabid because I saw horse shit on the screen and I heard people who were supposed to know better spouting all that bullshit about the "thousandth screening will be the the same as the first"....yah, ahole, but the first looked like freakin pond scum.

Thing is, quality has improved exponentially (except for missteps like what I experienced with J. EDGAR HOOVER, but obviously that was not the fault of digital, just like a half dead xenon isn't the fault of film....just as scratches aren't either, I might add). There is no doubt in my mind that digital now can give the average movie-goer a decent experience. But beyond that, my gut tells me it will keep getting better, just as film emulsions kept getting better even than the emulsions that were used on LOA. Ten years from now, who knows if that digital box may every well be able to give my grand kids goosebumbs. Of course they will have to have transferred the great 35mm and 70mm classics because nothing they make today is goosebump material. Just kidding....kinda although as a film collector, I've stopped collecting anywhere near the rate I used to.

But what about film? Maybe it will wind up like LPs. Small production runs for that niche audience that still wants to see the classics "as they were intended to be seen." There is no reason why art houses around the country, if they think they still can find film-loving audiences, why they can't form a cooperative and pay the studios to strike a new 35mm or even 70mm print that they could bicycle around the country. They would own the prints and could use them under the same terms as studios would use to make in their classic divisions that used to serve the arthouse exhibs. Would it more expensive than before digital, for sure, but so are LPs which are being struck and released in numbers that are growing practically exponentially -- people paying up in the near hundreds for a single new vinyl and thousands for high-end turntables and cartridges. Who ever thought that analog vinyl LP and mechanical turntables would ever have a resurgence in the face of near 100% penetration and dominance of CDs? Who knows. Anyone who tells you they do know is a fool. 2013....ha!
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-22-2011, 04:31 AM:
 
...and CD's are disappearing for the iTunes MP3 downloading and other forms of "personal collecting".

Gonna be the masses driving the market back to 35mm like they're doing with vinyl in a generation's time.

Sure, let them have fun with digital, for it's the "New Coke" thing - a new "thing, toy, fad", what have you .. for now.
 

---

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 11-22-2011, 09:00 PM:
 
CDs are disappearing, yet LPs have made a quiet comeback thank to demanding audiophiles and artists.

Maybe niche 35mm is sustainable.
 

---

Posted by Matthew McBride (Member # 6598) on 11-22-2011, 09:40 PM:
 
That would be great, especially for us avid 35mm film feature collectors.
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 11-22-2011, 09:53 PM:
 

quote: Frank Angel

---

Who ever thought that analog vinyl LP and mechanical turntables would ever have a resurgence in the face of near 100% penetration and dominance of CDs?

---

quote: Edward Havens

---

CDs are disappearing, yet LPs have made a quiet comeback

---

quote: Edward Havens

---

CDs are disappearing, yet LPs have made a quiet comeback thank to demanding audiophiles and artists.

Maybe niche 35mm is sustainable.

---

That problem with that comparison is the complexity of making film emulsion and processing it.

The raw material for LPs - polyvinyl carbonate - is also used to manufacture a lot of other things: everything from supermarket carrier bags to kinky costumes, in fact! There are enough cutting lathes and heads surviving from when LPs were mainstream to keep the boutique labels in business, though how long this will remain the case as parts wear out remains to be seen. While disc mastering is a craft skill, it can be learnt relatively quickly by someone who knows the basics of audio recording and mixing.

The raw materials and manufacturing processes involved with film stock, and especially colour stock, are a different kettle of fish. You need a bigger scale of infrastructure, and the combination of chemistries involved isn't used in any other industrial process, meaning that the economies of scale have to work for film alone. Furthermore, the lab craft skills needed to make and handle film require a lot more training and experience than an existing audio professional would need to learn how to cut a record.

The bottom line: once mainstream 35mm release printing has finished, I can't see it being cost effective for Kodak and/or Fuji (AFAIK the only remaining manufacturers of colour film emulsion) to keep making the stock and the chemistry needed to process it, just for a few dozen arthouse prints a year.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 11-25-2011, 10:18 AM:
 
I noticed that Ferrani seems to be back in the film stock business for consumer use
 

---

Posted by Edward Jurich (Member # 1787) on 11-26-2011, 10:52 PM:
 
Consider how obsolete reel to reel tape is but yet it is still being manufactured, in Europe I believe, because of the sonic quality of analog recording. You might be surprised, or not, to hear vacuum tubes are in demand for audio use.
I have seen some 35mm presentations in the past year that looked dull and some scenes with color shift. I don't think it's the release print, I think it's the original shot in the video-cam. It's hard to make a case for the wonderful look of film when the original source making the print is bad. It would be nice to have some worth while projects shot 35MM from camera to release print. Fifteen years from now you might see theater Marquee's boosting "Presented on Film" wowing a new generation....hey, get those things out of storage!
 

---

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 11-27-2011, 06:34 AM:
 

quote:

---

I feel very strongly about this issue and cannot stand idly by and let digital projection destroy the art that I live for. As one voice I cannot change the future, but hopefully if enough film lovers speak up, we can prove to the studios that repertory cinema is important and that we want 35mm to remain available to screen.

---

quote: Edward Jurich

---

Consider how obsolete reel to reel tape is but yet it is still being manufactured, in Europe I believe, because of the sonic quality of analog recording. You might be surprised, or not, to hear vacuum tubes are in demand for audio use.

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

I think there is an argument to be made as well for new digital restorations to be printed on 35mm.

---