This is topic The demise of film... What have you heard? 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=011523

---

Posted by Jay Glaus (Member # 6011) on 10-04-2013, 01:21 PM:
 
As we all know the buzz around the industry is the impending death of 35mm film. While that will be a sad day for all of us, there are a few rumors and hearsay regarding 35mm film that I believe are worth going over, so we can get a better understanding of what is really going on these days.

First, coming from the studios... We all know they are planning on completing the transition from film to digital in the near future. We are told that Kodak has quit making 35mm film stock and will no longer make it again due to their financial problems. Hence, when the supply of 35mm runs out, that's the official end of film.

However, there are a few contradicting stories and pieces of info regarding that. Yes, Kodak is having hard times. However, I have heard that Kodak does not plan to stop making 35mm film stock. What they plan on (or so I heard), is simply not keeping a stock of 35mm film readily available. But if you were to call up and say I want to make "Film-Tech: The Movie" and need 350 prints, they would be more than happy to provide you with film, they just have to make the film stock instead of having it sitting there ready. As far as I heard, Kodak hasn't even taken 35mm stock off of their products list. They still make it and you can get it, just to order.

Heck, photographers still use 35mm if they are into shooting with film, so it's not like no one uses it. I think it would be a bit of a stretch to believe the quit making it completely, would it not?

If that's the case, the way I see it, it isn't when 35mm runs out, it's simply when the studios finally decide its not worth it any longer. I'm sure it might cost a little extra if they really do make it to order, but the point is it will still be available, just whether anyone wants to use it or not. And as far as the end date of film, I've heard so many different answers I can't even remember half of them. How many have you heard?

Now, some of these rumors may be true or false. This is simply what I've heard through the forums here, people I know, news I've heard, and what I believe to be fairly reliable sources. If you have any info to clarify or contradict any of this and/or what you're hearing for when film bites the dust, I'm sure we all would like to hear it. I believe we've all been told a lot of different things and it would help, I think, to get a better understanding of what is really going on, if we can. Can we go another year? Is it going to be like pulling teeth to get film? I don't know, but I'm banking on the fact that maybe you do! If anyone wants to elaborate on these points that would be great.

Thanks!!
Jay
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-04-2013, 01:36 PM:
 
Jay, everyone keeps misreading these stories about Kodak and 35mm film. Surely you don't think the film theaters receive is the SAME as photographers use in their 35mm cameras, do you? Surely you don't think the film a recent movie was printed on and playing in theaters is the same as the negative film stock the movie was shot on, do you?

Think about it for a moment from a financial perspective. As of right now the only theaters still running film are the ones that couldn't afford to convert to digital. Logic prevails that these theaters are also not bringing in much profit, if any, over the cost of the film print. Also as less and less 35mm print stock is ordered, the cost will skyrocket higher and higher, thus making it REALLY impossible to release a film on 35mm in the future.

This is a matter of money. Film is incredibly close to being dead...as an EXHIBITION format. This has nothing to do with photographers or filmmakers SHOOTING on film.
 

---

Posted by Jason Metcalfe (Member # 5739) on 10-04-2013, 01:52 PM:
 
We're running Gravity on 35mm despite our two SRX-320s, if it's not a "logical" or financial reason then what is it?
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-04-2013, 02:01 PM:
 
As one who is in the middle of postproduction on two short films (yes, films, not videos), the thing that scares me is this: as of today, the infrastructure exists to make a movie on film and distribute it on film using photochemical means (no DI). This infrastructure is rapidly shrinking and, at some point, will collapse entirely.

There may be camera negative stock and print stock, but the infrastructure in the middle (negative cutting, optical printing, title creation, photochemical color timing, etc.) is on the way out, and the only way to produce a film will likely soon be via digital intermediate, which negates many of the special qualities of film as a medium. These processes require specialized knowledge and skill, and the people who are doing these jobs now are not likely to pass their crafts on to another generation. This is part of a process that has occurred over the last decade, and I do not see it stopping any time soon.

That said, we have not lost anything yet, and all of the materials that one needs to make and exhibit a movie on film are readily available. B&W camera and print stock has been a niche item for years, and will likely be available for the forseeable future (although Kodak's prices go up this month). Color film is more complicated to manufacture, and, especially with print stock, I can see that there will likely be significant price increases in the future.

I am still waiting for a definitive statement from a film distributor about the future availability of first-run features on 35mm. Everyone keeps quoting John Fithian's "2013" date (usually without citing the source), but that was just a prediction made by someone who does not distribute films (and who had/has a vested interest in DLP conversion).

Meanwhile, I am awaiting a shipment of brand-new 16mm prints. All is not lost...yet.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-04-2013, 02:20 PM:
 
Jason my guess would be that the image on 35mm puts out a better presentation than those Sonys. Ashamed you don't have DLPs.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-04-2013, 02:29 PM:
 
Scott...

What lab are you using... or which would you reccomend for both 16 & 35mm? Similar thing going on here...
I have used colorlab in the past but they are not as competitive on Ultra 16 as other labs are and they can't scan it. It only requires similar precautions in handling as Super 16 does. Can be east or west coast.

Thanks!
Mark
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-04-2013, 02:55 PM:
 
I used Magno in NYC (long out of the film business) and Alpha Cine in Seattle (just recently out of the film business) for negative processing. I am now using Foto-Kem for answer prints and 35mm blowups. So far, they have been great to work with and their prices have been very reasonable for that sort of work. Everyone loves Colorlab and their work is excellent, but their prices are through the roof.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-04-2013, 02:55 PM:
 
Is anyone actually creating movie titles (particularly credit rolls) using analog methods anymore? I figured all movie titling work has been designed and rendered digitally for at least the last decade or so. With DI, the titling scheme is just another object or set of objects to work into the time line.

I will say this: "digital" doesn't automatically make a title crawl perfect or error free. I've seen plenty of credit runs with lettering rife with pixel-based jaggies. The worst example of this I ever saw was the end credits to Fantasia 2000. That was on a 15/70mm IMAX print. But the end title elements were digitally created and then rasterized into pixel based images that were cooked into the IMAX print. The problem was the lettering was rendered at far too low a resolution level and with little, if any, anti-aliasing applied to the lettering. That makes it a "digital" mistake. I've seen the opposite as well, lettering blurred too much, making it somewhat illegible (especially if the lettering is set at a tiny size).
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-04-2013, 03:19 PM:
 
No one really does optical titles now, at least not on any kind of scale. It requires something like an Oxberry animation stand to do them properly (shooting back-lit Kodaliths), and I am told that there are no Oxberrys in the LA area. There might be one in NYC. I found a guy in Pittsburgh who has one. The other hard thing is finding print shops that can make film negatives. They are still out there, but most of them are now using computer-to-plate systems (good for them, bad for me).

The problem is that most digital titles look awful. Contrast the title work in a film from the '90s with the title work in a current film, and the quality of the titles in the '90s film (with optical titles) will be way, way higher.
 

---

Posted by Connor Wilson (Member # 6088) on 10-04-2013, 04:04 PM:
 
Inception and The Dark Knight Rises appear to have optical titles in the credits. I believe so because the titles are not as steady even on the Blu-rays. The sole reason for this is easily because Nolan is a celluloid-supremacist.

I seem to have noticed aliasing on the credits of particularly Sony movies, namely Moneyball and Men in Black 3. Skyfall's credits did have a tiny touch of aliasing and that was a 4K DCP being played through a 4K projector. Perhaps Sony likes to render credits at a lower resolution.

Oh, Scott. Those Oxberry stands were able to put out some neat pre-CGI effects. Yes, they were a pain to use, and the kind of animation is dated today. The early Front Row Joe trailers from Cinemark were one of the better examples of Oxberry animation.
 

---

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 10-04-2013, 04:31 PM:
 
One thing I've heard, but don't really have any information to back it up, is there will be a small supply of 35mm prints for the foreseeable future because those prints are reused in smaller foreign markets. I'm sure this would only apply to major releases/tent poles. I'm curious if anyone has specific information about this.

Assuming this is true, the question is whether a US cinema would be able to get 35mm prints reliably enough to keep current/recent product on screen. Given the short DVD windows, I can't see much use in getting a 35mm print 3-4 months after the initial wide release.
 

---

Posted by Jay Glaus (Member # 6011) on 10-04-2013, 07:44 PM:
 
A lot of good points here.

Brad, I see what you mean about the negative and print stock. I realize it's different, but I thought it was one of those where if they made the one, they would make the other. Like if you went to McDonalds and they started only selling sweet tea instead of regular too. Bad analogy, but nonetheless, I didn't realize they were that different.

I had originally heard that if you weren't converted by the end of this year that would be it, there would be no 35mm left for next. Now I am hearing that there should/could be film to at least start the year off with. I guess it's also the fact of how hard will that film be to get? That's the real question. If there is film but you have to go to the ends of the earth to get it, then is there really film?

We converted 2 of our 4 screens at the drive-in, and are planning on converting the last two. The question is, if we can get film for spring and summer of 2014, is it worth it to wait until next fall to buy it? Maybe throw in a mini golf course instead!

Who knows, you can never seem to get a real date when this will be it. Each year it seems like that will be it. When you converted to reverse scan red readers it was a little more cut and dry in my opinion. I guess it is one of those things were time will only tell.
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 10-04-2013, 10:31 PM:
 
The only official word I heard was the "OK to the end of 2013." This is not to say that this is the end; only that there will be a reassessment. Time will tell.

It is amazing to me how many people heard what they wanted to hear. Louis
 

---

Posted by Peter Howard (Member # 3491) on 10-04-2013, 11:21 PM:
 
Down here in Australia, the conversion process is almost complete.... the last holdout amongst the 'major' exhibitors was Reading, and they are now converting at a fast rate.

Whilst Reading were still predominately 35mm, getting hold of 35mm prints hasn't been a problem. With them now converting, I think it's going to get harder.

We have converted 2 of our 5 screens, and are about to complete a 3rd screen. The 4th and 5th screens were (hopefully) to be completed prior to Christmas, or at the latest 1st quarter of 2014. This is somewhat a fluid date for us, as my wife is battling a rare and aggressive form of cancer.

We haven't been given a firm date from anyone on the end of film. We can still source *most* titles on 35mm, with a few exceptions. What's worrying is that Fox have announced they wont be bringing anymore 35mm trailers into the country, but prints are fine. So we have trailers for Walter Mitty and Walking with Dinosaurs for this Christmas season, but apparently that's it. No other distributor has announced the same thing, though because Disney's Planes was a 2K only release (thanks to a local character being integrated into the story) we didn't get 35mm trailers for that either.... however we've got 35mm trailer for Saving Mr Banks which isn't until late January down here.

What IS getting really hard is obtaining 35mm if you're not first release, which fortunately we are. Often we have to take a film on 2K if we cant squeeze it in on the break. I hate doing that, because i'm locked into screening it on the one screen and it makes programming a PITA!

I guess it's still up in the air, but when it does happen I don't think exhibitors will be given much notice at all... so we're not intentionally hanging around!
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-04-2013, 11:28 PM:
 
Jay, if I was in your shoes at a drive-in...assuming you don't run all winter, I would wait until the spring to make a decision. You've literally got 4-6 months for you to just see what happens. Regardless you should keep packing that money away as if you MUST convert by the spring because it will happen. Even if you can squeeze by with a screen or two in 35mm next summer, the bookings might be pretty unfavorable for you where making the switch to digital would make better financial sense.
 

---

Posted by Jay Glaus (Member # 6011) on 10-05-2013, 12:12 AM:
 
Thanks Brad that's not bad advice. There enough time to wait, but still keep (or try to keep) the fund up.

I've always thought about when it gets down to the nitty gritty as film is finally dying, main/big features you probably will still be able to get, but what do you do for second features? Only the big blockbusters would be available in 35, and after that who knows.

Peter, I've heard the exact same thing about trailers. It certainly slowed down, not quite as much as I had thought it would but I always think the worst so I can be surprised. They definitely don't put as many in as they used to, and its far and few between that they send you one seperate to add to a showing. They're saving the stock for movies apparently. I look at the trail mix trailer hard drives I get with the digital booths and I think I get maybe 1/8th of them on 35mm if I'm lucky.

It would be nice though if they all put a date out and said something like after March 1st 2014 there will no longer be 35mm prints. It may not be what everyone wants to hear, but at least we would all know.

J
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-05-2013, 05:58 AM:
 
Back to animation: the weird thing is that, as far as I can tell, no one actually shoots animation on an animation stand anymore, at least not for anything with a budget. Even hand-drawn animation is now inked and painted on a computer and then output to film with a film recorder. This makes all the sense in the world from an economic and timing point of view, but I cannot help but think that something has been lost here.
 

---

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 10-06-2013, 12:18 PM:
 
We've been planning on receiving prints through January at least here at our 35mm 2nd run 8 plex.

We'll see what happens.
 

---

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 10-06-2013, 02:04 PM:
 

quote: Jay Glaus

---

I've always thought about when it gets down to the nitty gritty as film is finally dying, main/big features you probably will still be able to get, but what do you do for second features? Only the big blockbusters would be available in 35, and after that who knows.

---

quote: Jay Glaus

---

It would be nice though if they all put a date out and said something like after March 1st 2014 there will no longer be 35mm prints.

---

I don't think film will be gone forever, the next Christopher Nolan film is rumored to open in a number of 35mm theaters across North American. There will be very rare, select titles released IMO.

If you asked me 10 year ago if I would ever see a 70MM presentation such as The Master, I would of said no way.

If you would of asked me 10 years ago if I would ever see a Hollywood film shot with 15/70 and projected in 15/70 like The Dark Knight, I would of said you were out of your mind.
 

---

Posted by Lindsay Morris (Member # 1430) on 10-06-2013, 07:33 PM:
 
Unlike Peter Howard I am having great difficulty in sourcing enough titles to fill out the summer film season. I can see that I will have to book some titles that I really could not squeeze in last summer to plug up the gaps in the program.
Being out on video does NOT have a seriously detrimental effect on my numbers as patrons are generally NOT the ones who rush off to every first screening to see stuff.
4 of my regular distributors told me in April this year that as of then NO MORE 35mm releases whatsoever...ONLY DCP and not even E Cinema stuff which many small indies went with due to costs. (I never bothered with E Cinema as screen size and throw a bit much for the gear then available.)

So apart from ONE smaller distributor who IS releasing odd 35mm copies I am back to booking from the bigger distributors who have seriously cut back on the type of film that the audience here want. Sadly they are not much of a help either.

Thus I cannot see myself going beyond this summer and thus after 18 years of really good fun times doing the summer seasons we will close.
So far have NOT found any digital conversion that would be cost effective and something that we could seriously take on.

Just dropped some rough quotes to go digital onto the "bean counter's" desk and I think he is still stuck up on the ceiling.

Lindsay
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-06-2013, 07:42 PM:
 

quote: Terry Lynn-Stephens

---

There will be very rare, select titles released IMO.

---

If the demand for film stock and lab services once the conversion is essentially complete is sufficient to make it economically viable to continue the manufacture of all the raw materials and equipment needed for the small number of filmmakers who wish, and can afford to continue releasing titles on 35mm and 70mm for artistic reasons.

My gut feeling is that in the case of colour stock, that's a very big if. The chemistry of b/w is so much simpler and cheaper that IMO there's a better chance of it, plus lab services, continuing to be made at least into the medium-term future.

Remember - it's not just the stock we're talking about, but processing chemistry, printers, processors and all the support infrastructure for labs as well. As Robert Shanebrook's book points out, the cost of maintaining this capacity runs into hundreds of millions for Kodak, which (as far as I've been able to find out when I finished the research for my forthcoming book on film restoration, at the end of last year) is now the last remaining manufacturer of dye-coupler colour film emulsion in the world. So they're going to need to continue securing hundreds of millions of $$ in stock sales for colour film to stay viable. They are continuing to try to do that, and to market film pro-actively, notably with a recently-launched line of stocks designed specifically for use as archival preservation masters. But even with a look at rough, ballpark figures in the public domain, I fear, and would not be overly surprised, if the end of colour stock manufacture is announced within 3-5 years.
 

---

Posted by Peter Howard (Member # 3491) on 10-17-2013, 04:48 AM:
 
We started the conversion of our final 2 screens today... bittersweet moment, but we've got enough portholes to leave the 35mm equipment installed for the time being which means that we'll have a mix of 35mm and 2K for as long as we can obtain 35mm.
Hey, we've got a hell of a lot of spares to try and get through!

Paramount have joined Fox in not supplying anymore 35mm trailers, and Roadshow / Warners have advised their last 35mm release in Australia will likely be The Hobbit 2. Paramount have advised their last 35mm releases in Australia will be Anchorman 2, and Jack Ryan.

It's happening now, and in a hurry. Looks like we're just going to sneak in under the guillotine.
 

---

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 10-19-2013, 04:31 PM:
 
Peter, any word if the prints in your area are coming from the United States or another country?
 

---

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 10-19-2013, 04:40 PM:
 
Print numbers are getting lower and lower.....

Last week we got "The Family" and "Riddick", print numbers 00002 and 00005. Scary stuff!!!
 

---

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 10-19-2013, 05:33 PM:
 
Riddick and The Family would likely get a very low release for the remaining 35mm theatres, I wonder what the print numbers of a movie like Gravity or Captain Phillips are? I heard 300 prints for North America is what they are currently making.
 

---

Posted by Jason Metcalfe (Member # 5739) on 10-20-2013, 02:51 PM:
 
Our print of Gravity is #124 so not too bad. On a side note, there are definitely some printing errors in the third reel, some pink splotches around a lab splice
 

---

Posted by Lindsay Morris (Member # 1430) on 10-22-2013, 05:07 AM:
 
Captain Phillips in OZ is coming on a mere handful of 35mm prints and I will have to wait a while to secure one.But will at least be able to run it.

What is Gravity like on 35mm?? worth a shot screening it?? or is it only best in 3D.

As to prints being produced in OZ I am told that there are now NONE. ALL are imported from the USA.
Deluxe bought out Atlab in Sydney and closed down the 35mm printing facility and I believe only does DCP copies there now.

Lindsay
 

---

Posted by Jarod Reddig (Member # 6363) on 10-22-2013, 07:23 PM:
 
Gravity is one of those rare movies best seen in 3D IMHO.
 

---

Posted by Peter Howard (Member # 3491) on 10-23-2013, 02:02 AM:
 

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

Peter, any word if the prints in your area are coming from the United States or another country?

---

quote: Lindsay Morris

---

What is Gravity like on 35mm?? worth a shot screening it?? or is it only best in 3D.

---