Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Why is film so expensive?

This is topic Why is film so expensive? in forum Film-Yak 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=8;t=004737

Posted by Peter Berrett (Member # 672) on 07-26-2006, 07:49 AM:

HI all

I have noticed the price of many goods come down dramatically with mass production but despite mass production of film it still costs a considerable amount to get enough film for a movie and then get the film developed.

Given the potential mass market for home film use and film users, how come film technology has not seen the development of a truly low cost film stock with low fade characteristics? By this I mean film stock as cheap as duct tape meter per metre.

Is there some principal ingredient in film that makes it expensive and that is irreplaceable? Also I note that we have seen the development of self-developing photos - how come Kodak never came up with self developing film at low cost?

Hard questions for most to answer - maybe Mr Pytlak can shed some light.

Maybe there is a film stock conspiracy a la the oil companies & fuel efficient engines?

Regards Peter

[ 07-27-2006, 04:05 AM: Message edited by: Peter Berrett ]

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-26-2006, 08:10 AM:

The price of film stock has been stable, considering how much the raw materials have increased in price. The price of silver has almost doubled in the last year! The price of oil based plastics (i.e., polyester granules) has increased dramatically too.

Duct tape doesn't contain much silver, and is not coated with over a dozen distinct layers with tolerances in the sub-micrometer range. [Wink]

The list price of 35mm Kodak VISION Color Print Film is still less than 9 cents (>$0.09 USD) per foot.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-26-2006, 08:21 AM:

Polaroid actually did come up with a self-developing super-8 system (Polavision). The film was rather dense and couldn't be projected onto a standard screen (the viewing machine had a built-in rear-projection screen, which worked adequately). The quality was dismal, even for super-8, and the system required a special camera and playback unit, which were expensive. It was introduced in the late 1970s (just as videotape was becoming practical for home use) and pretty much failed in the marketplace. The hardware still shows up on Ebay from time to time, but film is no longer available.

The same color film technology was later used in Polaroid's 35mm slide product, which could be processed in a few minutes using a handcranked "processor" device. By that point (mid-1980s), the quality was decent. I'm not sure if this product is still available, however.

As a side note, if anyone knows of the best way to make an optical blowup from Polavision film to 16mm for preservation purposes, I would be interested. The only solutions that I have seen so far involve making a video transfer and then recording the video back out to film.

Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 07-26-2006, 10:10 AM:

Kodak did make self-developing film for a while, as I recall Polaroid took exception to it and Kodak ended up leaving the business suddenly.
I worked the Toronto product launch for the Polaroid instant slides. There just wasn't a market for them. Polaroid's core business was industrial and professional photography - pictures to support insurance claims for freight damage, test shots to check composition etc. on larger format still film shoots, and for continuity tracking at film shoots. These had little or no use for slides. The home market was always pretty small for Polaroid and only a small fraction of home photographers used slides.
The launch show used about the only interesting purpose I caould think of - photographers roamed the pre-presentation boozefest then inserted slides of the participants into the slide show during the presentation.

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 07-26-2006, 09:35 PM:

I remember when video cameras started to take over from Super 8. boring 3 minute home movies were replaced with boring 3 hour home movies.

Further, my friends would not believe that their precious images of their kids growing up would disappear over the years.

A couple of years ago, my son had a class re-union. He was the only one who could supply a movie of the class. The clockwork Bell & Howell standard 8 camera, that was laughed at by his peers, had captured the images that none of his mates’ whizz-bang video could retain.

Video is great, but it is part of our transitory society. Film is expensive, compared to video. However, we get what we pay for.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 07-26-2006, 10:17 PM:

Dave, we did a show here that used the exact same technique. At the banquet for one of the NAPTE conventions in the early '80s at what is now Bally's Hotel & Casino we had a team of photographers make the rounds during the evening. At the end of the night we did a multi-projector slide show that featured slides shot during the banquet and reception.

I thought it was a pretty cool idea. Still do, though now of course we're using digital cameras and projectors and PCs or Macs for image origination, display, and show control technology. No more dozens of Kodak Carousel projectors, show-saver spare lamp modules, or AVL Dove dissolve units.

Posted by Peter Berrett (Member # 672) on 07-27-2006, 04:00 AM:

quote: John Pytlak
The price of film stock has been stable, considering how much the raw materials have increased in price. The price of silver has almost doubled in the last year! The price of oil based plastics (i.e., polyester granules) has increased dramatically too.

Duct tape doesn't contain much silver, and is not coated with over a dozen distinct layers with tolerances in the sub-micrometer range.

The list price of 35mm Kodak VISION Color Print Film is still less than 9 cents (>$0.09 USD) per foot.

Hmmm

9 cents for 35mm film per foot?

Logically then super 8 film being 1/4 the diameter should be 2.25 cents per foot.

However a quick search of my local super 8 dealer turns up the following

Link to suspiciously familar Super 8 Dealer

The cartridge price is $A24. I have seen similar prices elsewhere. $A24 is about $US18.30.

Now the cartridge is a 50ft roll of film so the cost equates to $18.30/50 = about $US0.36 per foot.

So film that is one quarter the diameter of 35mm (approx) costs 4 times as much!

In total that means that super 8 film is 16x times more expensive than 35mm film!!!

Why is this so?

(I'm not having a go at you John - just curious as to why Super 8 costs so much). Maybe it is better to buy a 35mm camera and shoot with that?

Regards Peter

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-27-2006, 08:53 AM:

That 9 cent a foot figure was for 35mm PRINT film, the film used to make theatrical prints. Camera original films cost more, depending on the format and length.

Posted by Peter Berrett (Member # 672) on 07-27-2006, 06:03 PM:

Thanks John

[ 07-27-2006, 10:06 PM: Message edited by: Peter Berrett ]

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 07-30-2006, 02:04 AM:

quote: Peter Berrett
In total that means that super 8 film is 16x times more expensive than 35mm film!!! Why is this so?

I made my first intermission clock in Super 8mm, when I was 11 or 12 years old. (Yes, I'm that nuts on them... can't explain it.) [Roll Eyes]

It didn't take long for me to graduate to 16mm, and even less time (in terms of actual productions) to go to 35mm. When pricing it all out initially, I was surprised that there wasn't that much of a difference in price between 16 and 35 per ft.

Of course, 35mm runs a heck of a lot faster than 16, but it's also playable in theatres.

I was always disappointed in Super 8, though. The grain was noticeable to me, and I never saw a projector that could take a splice in that format. Reg 8, yes, but not Super 8.