I'm Back

[Nicholas Kovats]

Good to see you back, Nigel.

Niagara Custom Labs here in Toronto has aggregated North American 16mm print production, i.e. http://www.niagaracustomlab.com/

There is no intention to stop this service. It is somewhat dependent on the availability of Kodak chemistry supplies but I suspect alternatives suppliers could be found. I suspect that may or may not impact the Kodak film "look". But then again I am not a chemist.

You are right on about the predominance of Far-East camera design and aesthetics. It's interesting that Panavison, Arriflex and Aaton are NOT impacting Canon, Nikon nor Vision-Research camera design. Its as if the camera housing was an afterthought. Specifically Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, et al ...cannot seem to differentiate from their massive consumer camera aesthetics.

The remaining film based craftsmen continue to use what works. And it works damn well absent nested menus which appear to promote endless options as opposed to focus on the essentials of the craft.

[Blue Audio Visual]

Our filmstock sales has gone down with about 50% each year for the past 2-3 years and this year so far we've hardly sold any film. I think we've only processed about 10-20 rolls so far.

I'm quite amazed about how fast this shift has come and Kodak's financial troubles does not help AT ALL. It's like people have lost confidence in film (or film services).

I've been in the business of selling Super 8 film for over 20 years now and I don't recognise the trend that you are describing at all.

Just to pluck some figures out of the air, I sold the following from my website (not including sales on eBay or face-to-face):

April 2012 - 330 cartridges
April 2011 - 178 cartridges
April 2010 - 261 cartridges

And dealt with the processing of:

April 2012 - 164 cartridges
April 2011 - 91 cartridges
April 2010 - 149 cartridges

These are some date ranges that have been fairly arbitrarily picked and that I happen to have on hand here on my laptop at home.

The cart sales figures don't include any ebay or face to face sales as I've only got the website info to hand here, so the total sales figures for Super 8 stock is probably in the region of 150-200% of the figures above.

***Just for those interested in %age terms the stock sales breakdown is Colour Reversal 72%, B&W 18%, Negative 10%***

[aj]

We'll make Bart head of the good news department

Just imagine how many films Andec must be processing per month. As they very nearly do all processing for Europe.
Apart from the hand-processors

[kuparikettu]

And here in Finland we have some positive developments as well. While the only big commercial film laboratory went bankcrupt a few months ago (due to most of the tv-spots being shot nowadays on 5D and at least half of the feature length movies on Alexa and Red) there is something new on its way -- and that is the film laboratory built by my friend. Super-8, 8mm and 16mm processing, 16mm contact printing and 2K scanning (not telecine!) on its way with prices very much affordable by enthusiasts. There are some photos on the current website (text in Finnish) http://alhoslab.fi/

Don't worry though-- the first photo is of the first try many years ago. The youtube videos are also made with the first version of the scanner (which used a telefax ccd from the 90s...) and a new much more polished one with Kodak CCD is on its way.

Then I just have to stockpile some film for very low budget projects and process&scan @ Alhoslab or when doing something with more money take up the more professional approach..

[marc]

Let's just keep R8 around for kicks and everything else can whistle dixie!

[Will2]

16mm prints??
What are those??
I haven't had a 16mm print made since 1998. FYI. Those already are gone.

AlphaCine in Seattle whipped up a 400' print for me last year. They still know what they are doing, the color was amazing. Nice to run through a projector without worrying about damaging the film.

Kodachrome and Ektachrome 100D look amazing projected but once they're scratched it's there forever. You can always make another print...at least for a couple of years maybe.

[Nigel]

Will2

I have never liked AlphaCine. They have always left me wondering why I didn't just send film off instead of picking up.

Water spots
Shitty Front Desk Girl
Trying to tell me I didn't see artifacts in the 35 blow-up
Telecine that looks like a mild upgrade from shooting it off the wall.

Nah. I'll pass on them.

Good Luck

[Will2]

I definitely had a warmer feeling towards Forde Labs before Alpha took them over, but I've never had any of the issues you describe.

I send multiple types of stocks there and they do a fine job and will send some to Lightpress and some back to me in the same order and have never screwed it up.

I don't have to see the front desk lady so that helps. Maybe they just don't respect the locals.

My single local lab (Dallas) still does 35 & 16 color negative and I like to support it when I can. They smile when I walk in because they just don't get much work these days.

[carllooper]

cut

[carllooper]

cut

[carllooper]

cut - I'm having bad luck today - hit the "quote" button rather than the "edit" button three times.

[carllooper]

That was a related point I tried to make several years ago when 24p and then 24p HD came out. People on this forum would insist that film was still preferred by the industry because television and theatrical production was still film based even though digital was abundantly available; as if the preference for film was based on quality only. But what many did not understand was that quality wasn't as big an issues as the fact that the infrastructure for film was sooooooo pervasive that switching over to digital meant more than just getting a digital camera instead of a film camera. Lab contracts, unions, equipment rental and servicing contracts, etc were all part of a larger, interconnecting mosaic of considerations that have, one by one, been dealt with over the years. Now, the infrastructure is pretty much all digital with a very, very small percentage of hold outs still using film for acquisition, post and release.

Knowing that this was going to happen, I actually admired the fact that Red and Panavision and some of the other digi-film camera producers even bothered to try and emulate the look of film because, let's face it, they certainly didn't have to. It has become apparent that audiences will accept pretty much any kind of crappola you put in front of them. So, from my standpoint, I say hat's off to any company that tries to keep the look of film a constant in story telling because it could be so, so much worse.

Roger's take on this has always been persuasive because it's always based on what the industry is doing/thinking. Movements in the industry are large scale movements that affect everybody. However the counter-argument, while not necessarily well argued, isn't necessarily about large scale movements in the industry, or about the industry at all. But when framed in terms of industrial movements, the counter-arguments can be misunderstood.

For example, if I say I like film, then that like of film shouldn't necessarily be a function of what the industry is doing. If I find film is becoming harder to use I can certainly hope that it were otherwise, and look for signs in the industry that it would be otherwise, and even convince myself, despite the statistical evidence, that the industry will preserve some sort of space for film. But that hope, whether well founded, or misguided, isn't the actual argument. That hope has it's basis in a particular attitude that is (or can be) independant of the industry. One can just happen to like some aspect of film irregardless of what the industry is doing. And if one projects that attitude onto the industry, it is in the hope that a space will be preserved by industry for what one is hoping. That hope doesn't depend on whether the industry will actually service that hope. The hope is there, or it can be there, regardless.

Why should one's particular like of film (or digital for that matter) be a function of what everyone else is doing. It's like saying the only reason one doesn't really jump off a cliff is because nobody else is doing so. Or that the only reason one does jump off a cliff is because everyone else isn't doing so.

But one can also jump off a cliff because one likes hang gliding.

The other point I'd like to make is that in the past, differences between film and video have played a BIG role in determining whether one shot film or video. As a young filmmaker I wanted to work in the film industry, rather than television, because I liked the look of film (amongst other things about film), not because the film industry was stuck in contracts. And I wasn't alone in that. I wasn't the odd one out amongst the budding filmmakers.

Now I actually ended up working in television for 4 years, not because I wanted to, but because I couldn't get into the film business at that time. In Australia it was (and remains) a very small industry, with only a few opportunities available. In other words the industry does affect your position. But that doesn't mean it should fundamentally define where you (as a filmmaker) would prefer to be. In my particular case, I just continued to make films anyway. The only difference is that I funded them rather than an industry doing so (consumers doing so).

Along the way I met heaps of people, working in television, who enjoyed the fact that I worked on film. They couldn't understand what on Earth possessed me to shoot on film (rather than use video) but nevertheless appreciated that I was doing so. For me the issue was really simple. When you projected a video on a big screen it looked like crap. And the only reason video (digital) looks less like crap today is not because film contracts have expired (obviously) but because there are filmmakers and technicians out there, like me, who do care about the look. Otherwise we'd be watching SD video on big screens today.

And Roger admires this as well, but in a strange sort of way, as if to suggest it is odd in some way.

Roger says: "I actually admired the fact that Red and Panavision and some of the other digi-film camera producers even bothered to try and emulate the look of film"

Why would it be a "bother"?

Roger goes on to say "because, let's face it, they certainly didn't have to"

Why did they not have to?

Roger is once again rearranging the argument - that the industry (consumers, business models, contracts) should or does really determine how films are made, and that only odd events change that, and that these odd events will "bother" to change that (rather than actually enjoy or want it). But it's not that odd at all. In fact I'd argue it's the rule. It's a similar reason that motivated me to originally work in film. It is because video would look like crap on the big screen, or in the early days of video, video couldn't even be projected on the big screen. I couldn't give a rat's arse if nobody else could tell the difference. I could. And that's what mattered to me. But my position is not that unique. Filmmakers do care about the look (amongst other things). If film is too expensive and we have to work in digital then we do care that it be better looking than SD video. Only film (or digital) producers are capable of thinking otherwise. I spent time in the late 80s and early 90s hybridising digital cameras to get something that looked better than SD. There was no economic/contractual/industrial reason to do so. I didn't succeed but it was obvious others, in more well resourced positions, would eventually succeed in doing what I was attempting to do. Because like me, they wanted it. Business eventually sees there is money to be made and gets on board as well. But business, contracts, industry, consumers, while helpful, are not the determinates. They act as constraints on the determinates. That is their role.

Today I work in film for a number of other reasons - not just how it looks on the big screen (or small screen for that matter) but for historical and theoretical (philosophical) reasons beyond just the look.

On a final note, Peter Jackson is currently shooting The Hobbit at 48 fps and is in talks with the industry to see if it can be screened in cinemas, projected at 48 fps. He has the resources to do that of course. But there is no inherent business need to do so. Why does he "bother"? He just likes the way it looks. Not everyone agrees with him on whether it looks good, but the point is that's where the debate is centered. It is about the look (amongst other things).

Carl

[Will2]

Carl, not to speak for Roger, but as you point out his point was why & how things were evolving, not whether or not it should effect how a person feels about film or digital.

Having just recently gotten into 35mm, I have a slightly different take now. I love that I bought a perfect crystal sync Arri 2c for $1500, can find short ends and recans for less than 16mm now and amazing Spirit transfers for $.25/ ft. If I added all the costs (film, processing and transfer) up it would be still less than renting an Alexa for a day and I get the arguably/slightly better quality of 35mm with it's superior archiving ability. If I BOUGHT an Alexa, the equation is completely turned to film.

It maybe the swan song of film, but it's never been more affordable...at least for a couple more years, so shoot while you can.

[MovieStuff]

Roger says: "I actually admired the fact that Red and Panavision and some of the other digi-film camera producers even bothered to try and emulate the look of film"

Why would it be a "bother"?

Roger goes on to say "because, let's face it, they certainly didn't have to"

Why did they not have to?

Roger is once again rearranging the argument - that the industry (consumers, business models, contracts) should or does really determine how films are made, and that only odd events change that, and that these odd events will "bother" to change that (rather than actually enjoy or want it).

Somehow I guess I'm not making myself clear. My point is that audiences no longer demand high quality and certainly do not demand the look of film over video these days. So while some people on this forum demonize Red, Panavision, etc for trying to push an electronic veneer of film, I say it could be sooooooo much worse since it is obvious that the majority of audiences simply don't give a fuck about quality on any level. Within that context, I say bully for any company that tries to maintain a higher quality image if there is no audience demand for it.

Roger

[Angus]

In a small way I do agree with Roger....I mourn the loss of projection from film in mainstream cinema and of the aquisition and editing on film even more to be honest...

But one has to accept that Joe Public doesn't seem to care.

The best I can do is patronise the cinema 20 miles away which offers 4K projection compared to my local multiplex with 2K...and point out to other cinema-goers why one looks better than the other.