|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: keeping 35mm and running digital
|
Liz Coffey
Film Handler
Posts: 4
From: Roxbury, MA USA
Registered: Jun 2007
|
posted 05-07-2013 08:50 AM
Hello out there,
I'm part of a group interested in keeping film alive alongside digital.
Although most theatres have already made the switch, we know there are a lot of smaller cinemas working on it now.
If you work for or own a theatre that hasn't yet made the switch and are interested in keeping film going, please get in touch with us.
Here's our main website, where you will find links to a survey, facebook, etc.
http://www.filmadvocacy.org/
Please take our survey!
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/56DD278
Film will continue to be available for some time, whether through independent or archival releases, or via all those old prints that won't cease to exist, and we can help keep film alive by showing it.
(I'm not interested in turning this discussion into a film vs digital debate, by the way.)
thanks!
~Liz
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 05-08-2013 01:54 AM
quote: Brad Miller
I do have a general question here regarding the "35mm will never die" camp. Did everyone fail math? We are past the point of theaters taking a stand. We are past the point of passion about film. It is at this point nothing more than raw, basic math.
I couldn't agree more, and am finding myself getting increasingly frustrated with my colleagues in the archive world who are in serious denial over this. The infrastructure, machinery, consumables and expertise needed to manufacture tripack colour film emulsion is just such a complicated and expensive package that it is quite simply never going to be viable for it to be supported by a customer base that consists purely of archivists, artists and enthusiasts. When asked by curators from a London art gallery in October 2011 about this, the sales director of OrWo replied:
quote: Tate Gallery report
If you are able to produce an order for an amount over the size of two football fields (120 m long and 90 m wide) and have 2 Million Euros to spare for testing and are able to give us 2 years’ notice, we could look into this further
It may be possible to continue b/w production on a cottage industry basis in the long-term - after all, OrWo are managing to stay in business by doing so at present, and I believe that Tasma still makes one line of print stock too. But I can't see there being any 'vinyl revival' for colour film stock: it just costs far more to make and process than the remaining customer base will be able to pay.
The format fetishism by some archivists also defies rational argument in many ways. Example: when I was in California over Easter, Paul Rayton very kindly ran a reel of The Wages of Fear for me, which happened to be in the Egyptian's booth at the time. It was struck on colour stock, from a 2K DI, and with a cyan soundtrack. Now, one of the arguments sometimes used by archivists to support doing everything possible to continue the production and use of motion picture film is that it is the 'original' medium, and that watching content originated on film through another medium is fundamentally inauthentic.
Yet how was the experience of viewing that print in any way authentic? It was a b/w film printed on colour stock, and so had a slight purple tinge. It was derived from a digital file, which itself was derived from another film element, and so had gone through two changes of medium since the one that was created in the camera. If we'd been seeing a DCP, it would only have gone through one. I have actually seen a 1953, original (as in, created for the movie's initial release) 35mm print of that film, and my subjective impression is that the Criterion Bluray looks much closer to it in terms of contrast, mid-tone detail, definition, overall photographic 'look' and audio 'feel' than this print did. Yet some archivists and many film buffs will insist on what they regard as the authenticity of film. If asked what this consists of, a depressingly high number will cite things that are actually defects in the production or presentation of film prints (scratches, flicker, fluctuating contrast during a shot, that sort of stuff), ones which no visitor to a first run, top quality house would ever have seen anyway.
How many people would try to argue that listening to an MP3 download reissue of a recording of a Beethoven symphony is inauthentic, because they're not having to change the shellac records every four minutes?
It is important for archives to preserve film elements that embody evidence the original production process, both because they are easier and cheaper to preserve than data, and so that there is something to compare new, digital access copies against objectively. But in my view their priority should be to create circulating collections of decent quality, properly scanned and mastered DCPs of their more popular holdings and restorations, not trying to prevent something from happening that has pretty much already happened.
quote: Brad Miller
the last batches of print stock have already been made. When it runs out, that it! Supposedly this is expected to happen by the end of the year.
Do you have any hard information on this, or is it just an educated guess? Kodak claim to be offering a full line of print stock at the moment, but admittedly they're not telling us what lines are now down to special order only (2302 is, from what I've heard).
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liz Coffey
Film Handler
Posts: 4
From: Roxbury, MA USA
Registered: Jun 2007
|
posted 05-08-2013 08:31 AM
Hi there, ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
As some of you may know, film has been produced for over one hundred years! I think it's not unreasonable to think some theatre owners will have the opportunity to show film in the future.
What we are advocating, in part, is that if you have the opportunity, that you keep your equipment in place, working, and run film when you can.
I posted this here because this forum is for theatre owners and staff, right? You are the people making this decision. ![[beer]](graemlins/beer.gif)
Keep the faith, people, and please take our survey. ![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
~Liz
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 05-08-2013 09:00 AM
Scott's link (and the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle page linked from it) don't mention print stock specifically: they simply talk about the 'supply of motion picture film to Hollywood'. I'm guessing this means mainly camera negative stock, plus smaller quantities of IN stock for DI burnouts.
I've lost track of what the majors are saying about the complete discontinuation of distribution on film: the last I knew, two of them (Warners and Disney, IIRC) had announced that this would happen as of the end of this year. The place to watch will be the labs that serve the archives and art/rep distributors (e.g. Cineric, Film Technology Co. and Cinema Arts in the US, PresTech in Britain). When their prices start to go through the ceiling and/or services are withdrawn, that's going to be the writing on the wall.
The only rate card I can find online for colour release printing is Colorlab's. For a straightforward, one-light 35mm release print (presumably contact printed from a timed interneg and track neg), their price is $0.92 a foot. I'm guessing that the other comparable labs all charge similar prices. So taking this as an example, after incidentals, set-up charges, shipping, tax etc., you're looking at $10k-ish for a single print of a two-hour feature. As Brad points out, all it takes is one booth accident and that investment is written off.
Already, you can have a 2K DCDM/DCP created from a timed interneg for about half that figure, which can then be copied without limit and for virtually nothing (e.g. $100 for another portable hard drive). While film printing is still just about possible, archives and smaller distributors have to decide which is the better way of spending the money they have available.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jock Blakley
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 218
From: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Registered: Oct 2011
|
posted 05-08-2013 09:01 AM
Unfortunately Kodak's manner is usually to stop making something and then announce it's discontinuation. When they officially discontinued Technical Pan Film 2415/4415/6415 in 2004 they freely admitted they hadn't actually made any since around 2001, and that in the intervening time they'd also discontinued the ESTAR-AH base on which it was coated. However, Kodak's massive production scales at the moment (minimum of 7000 ft x 70 inches in most cases, AFAIK) suggest to me that an end-of-this-year timeframe is not completely likely.
As to continued presentation of film: we installed 4K alongside our existing 35/70 installation in July 2011, but as a repertory cinema we didn't go into it with any expectation of continuing to receive new releases on film (off the top of my head, the last new prints we received were in mid-2012, possibly THE ARTIST).
I have to take a bit of a opposite tilt on the presentation of existing prints though. Of course prints are going to become increasingly rare in circulation, and that's a function just as much of the people controlling the purse-strings before you even consider the availability of stock.
On the other hand though - why have a print if not to present it? We cherish deeply our 35mm and 70mm holdings for that exact purpose.
Yes, one pass can ruin a print that's very shortly going to become irreplaceable. So can one pass ruin a print that's already irreplaceable - as could happen when we show BARAKA or BEN-HUR or THE RIGHT STUFF in 70mm mag or APOCALYPSE NOW REDUX or even FRANKENSTEIN MUST BE DESTROYED in Technicolor IB.
We show a print of CITIZEN KANE from the '70s that I'm told is one of the last to have been struck from that film's original elements. Should we hide it away until it vinegars into nothingness against the chance of malfunction destroying it?
In fact, with distributors in Australia being the way they are, damage during presentation is probably one of the least common ways for a print to be removed from circulation. We used to hold hundreds of prints that have since been junked not because they were unsuitable for presentation but because the distributor that purchased their rights in October 2011 didn't wish the hassle of them existing. A short selection of titles included:
GOLDFINGER (original IB)
THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY (restoration)
A BRIDGE TOO FAR
ANNIE HALL
THUNDERBIRDS ARE GO ('90s reprint)
RAGING BULL ('90s reprint, genuine B&W, four prints)
THE GREAT ESCAPE (2001 reprint)
THE APARTMENT (2002 reprint)
and on and on and on.
With that in mind I look at what we are able to show on film and rejoice! 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY in 70mm from 1996. PUBLIC ENEMY, 1996 print from 1976 elements. THE MISSION, original 70mm print. EL TOPO, new 35mm print. DIRTY HARRY, recent 35mm print. PARIS, TEXAS, breathtaking 1997 print. Branagh's HAMLET, original 70mm print. PINK FLOYD: THE WALL, original 70mm print.
Certainly, compared to making reliable consistent monopack colour negative film, making vinyl records is child's play. The comparison completely ignores reality.
But prints exist to be seen.
Other than that, our 35mm installation gets the majority of its work nowadays showing original 35mm trailers to digital re-releases.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic