With Kodak going bust is this the end for film?

[Quantel]

Kodak the iconic photography firm, whose name is synonymous with film, filed for bankruptcy protection. Does this show another case of film dying out with digital being picked as ‘the format of choice’ for the movie industry?

Spielberg’s War Horse and Golden Globe winning The Artist were both shot on Kodak Motion Picture Film. But is celluloid still relevant 120 years on?

I'm writing a feature article for the Quantel blog looking at the roots of mass digital adoption and want to interview post production pros on how major motion picture capturing and post production has evolved.

We want to hear from professionals, industry commentators and your views on the film vs digital debate. Click this link for more info or reply to this thread.

Here's a video of Tarantino - who I think is still backing 35mm film!

[Geoff Poulton]

My nephew runs a film company and I spoke to him about this a few months ago. I was discussing the good quality of the photography on one of his releases that I had recently been to see.

The film was shot on......well, film. His comment was that "we can't get the resolution with digital that we can with film".

I assume that they might be happy to use digital from a cost perspective, but film is what they use for the above reason.

I find Kodak's demise as somewhat ironic. They turned their backs on film and rushed to digital, although it has to be said that Fuji made things very difficult for them in the film market with the introduction of their Velvia film, which many preferred over the Kodak offerings. Certainly as far as stills photography is concerned.

[Quantel]

Hi Geoff,

That's great I need more comments like this - favouring film. Could you ask your nephew to get in touch / or send him this URL: Kodak files for bankruptcy protection: How long is film’s tail? he can get in then email me and I can give his film company some publicity on the article.

Many thanks

[bigwebb83]

wow had no idea they did this. Things don't look good these days for american based manufacturing. Especially in a dwindling industry like film

[Quantel]

@bigwebb83 - The news was just announced yesterday. They'd been in business for over 132 years and just couldn't adapt fast enough to the 'digital age'.

[insomaniac]

The killer is that Kodak holds many of the major patents for digital imaging. Their biggest folly was not being able to do more with them. I'm hoping this doesn't mean the END of Kodak, but I think I'm going to stock up on their available 120 slide film just in case.

[Bill@AudioVision]

Keep in mind it's 'restructuring' not 'demise' that most companies look for in the bankruptcy laws.

[Quantel]

@Bill you're right, it's not the end yet.

[ripple_fx1]

Here's a little relevant American "restructuring" for you -
First on the American scene (courtesy captured WW2 German scientists) Ferro Sheen was gobbled by Ampex, who then became Quantegy. I've had the pleasure of transferring double play Ferro Sheen, with it's radical "double the playing time - AT ALL SPEEDS!" claim...and I can report that a bagpipe played backwards sounds exactly like a bagpipe.
If I had my, um, nose stoppering a wash basin like this fellow, I don't think I'd want my bud there helping to shampoo me like a buffalo. And if you were a leprechaun, wouldn't you have your sink installed at leprechaun height, rather than having to use a stool? Just sayin'....
Happy to report that like Quantegy, Paul W's firm is alive and well, with the longest continuously-in-production design in the world - the mighty Klipschorn.

[Ricey]

audio tape is also made on film, what!
are there alternatives for RMG and ATR?

[tom_lowe]

Originally Posted by Geoff Poulton

His comment was that "we can't get the resolution with digital that we can with film".

Given that pretty much every single film goes through DI, the only way this can be true is if they scan the negative at 6K or 8K. A lot is scanned at 2K. By the time it's printed back to 35mm, shown at loads of cinemas and treated badly, the film prints look terrible.

I know this isn't about projection as such, but film was outperformed by digital projection years ago. Of course, a brand new print on a well maintained projector (yeah right) will look as good if not better, but that's hardly ever the case.

With 4+ K cameras, the resolution of film is now easily achievable, especially if high ISO stock was used.

[Thomas W. Bethe]

I have a friend who retired from Kodak. He foresaw their demise 30 years ago. He was glad to get out when he did. This is what he told me.

Like most big American companies Kodak was making a lot of money. They had the lock on a lot of film and graphic products that were used everyday so they kept selling the same supplies over and over again and thought, wrongly, that this was going to continue ad infinitum which it did not. They were slow to adapt to the changing technology even though they had done research and even had patents on a lot of the new products we all use today. However they never followed through with bringing those products successfully to market and the Japanese saw their weakness and struck hard bringing digital photography into our daily lives. They were also a company with a long history and a lot of decisions that they made were based on " historical policies" that worked over the years but were not relevant for today's economy and today's life styles.

FWIW

[Thomas W. Bethe]

If they do go under I will be very sad. They were a great company who just could not keep up with the times. I have a lot of Kodachrome slides that I took over the years plus rolls and rolls of B&W film that I processed in my own home darkroom. A lot of my life is documented on Kodak products. The hardest thing to have happen recently was their announcement that they were stopping production of Kodachrome film as that was my go do slide film and I had used it over 50 years . Because of the cost and the difficulty getting color film developed locally I just recently got rid of my last film camera and lens. It is really the end of an era.

[minister]

Here is an interesting read which may add some actual facts and historical context to the discussion.

How Kodak Squandered Every Single Digital Opportunity It Had

[Thomas W. Bethe]

Originally Posted by minister

Here is an interesting read which may add some actual facts and historical context to the discussion.

How Kodak Squandered Every Single Digital Opportunity It Had

This pretty much sums up what my friend was telling me all along.

[Quantel]

@minister & Thomas - that article pretty much sums it all up. Look out for the Feature on the Rise of Digital, which I'll be posting here later this week.

[Kuba_Pietrzak]

As a sound related guy, I cannot comment the discussion digital cameras vs 35mm cameras... but:

I had a very interesting discussion with a really respectable director, who told me about the REAL difference between those 2 things...

35mm film costs. And costs a lot, when we're talking about making a feature film. So this means, that you have 2 or 3 takes per shot. If you try to do more, the producer appears saying "we're running out of tape!". This is a limitation, but in terms of the work flow and discipline on the set this is great, because literally everyone wants to do their best, because you can have only 2 or 3 takes! If you use the digital storage it does not matter - you do 3 or 13 takes - it is only about time, nothing else...

These are his words... I do not know, if I agree, but there is something with this...

best,
Kuba

[philper]

No well informed, observant director shoots film because they think it is "higher resolution" than the best HD video. They know it isn't. They shoot film because they like the look, the relatively low-tech setup on location (many fewer wires etc), and the rhythm of breaks at mag changes. Few directors are given the choice anymore due to costs, but clever ones who like film have been able to make the numbers work to allow them to shoot in the medium they think suits the story they are telling if they want to. Shooting full-up hirez HD is not cheap either.

phil p

[Quantel]

Here's the article that takes into account all that's been mentioned on this thread - showing the real reasons why digital has seen off film for good in the movie business:

The rise of digital in motion pictures – Beyond the tipping point for film (part 1 of 2)

It also explains the one game-changing event in 2009 that changed everything!

Do you agree?

[jakethus]

yeah my dad worked for kodak for like 30 years, they started closing all their plants right before he was ready to retire and he got ****ed out of his retirement now he is a courrier making 1/5 what he used to. i know, completely irrelevant sorry

[tom_lowe]

Originally Posted by jakethus

yeah my dad worked for kodak for like 30 years, they started closing all their plants right before he was ready to retire and he got ****ed out of his retirement now he is a courrier making 1/5 what he used to. i know, completely irrelevant sorry

One interesting point this does raise is archiving. I know for a fact that every film the BFI restore, even digital restorations, is recorded back to film, because it's a known quantity and they know how it will deteriorate over time. With digital formats they don't know what will be playable in 50+ years time. We know films older than that can still be shown, so in that respect, film has a long life ahead of it.

I wonder if in 50 years, Skyfall will be viewable, or will we only be left with all the Bonds prior to that.

[Quantel]

@Jakethus - that's awful sorry to hear that.

@tom_lowe Good point, we know that Skyfall's being shot in 4K so for the moment it's pretty future-proof, however read the article below and when part 2 is out - we'll go into the future trends within digital. Share these comments on the blog and we'll put them out to our Facebook community too.

The rise of digital in motion pictures – Beyond the tipping point for film (part 1 of 2)

[tom_lowe]

Originally Posted by Quantel

@Jakethus - that's awful sorry to hear that.

@tom_lowe Good point, we know that Skyfall's being shot in 4K so for the moment it's pretty future-proof, however read the article below and when part 2 is out - we'll go into the future trends within digital. Share these comments on the blog and we'll put them out to our Facebook community too.

The rise of digital in motion pictures – Beyond the tipping point for film (part 1 of 2)

I know they're shooting on an Alexa in ARRIRAW so not even full 4K sadly.

[bbell]

It would be smart for kodak to move to the digital realm. Regardless of the "digital vs analog" argument, you must keep up with the times.

..and sorry to hear that jakethus, pretty shitty.

[Quantel]

@bbell Kodak have aligned their business to focus on digital printing apparently.. Which is a little odd don't you think?

[wwjd]

I'd rather not be quoted

[Quantel]

So it's unanimous, digital filmmaking and post has ended 35mm films dominance in the movie business. This new research looks at the future trends in post production and the filmmakers, like Spielberg, who are still loyal to film:

The rise of digital in motion pictures – Beyond the tipping point for film (part 2 of 2)

Are there any other trends you can think of that will drive cinema forward?

[Tom Fleischman]

I'm all for moving things forward, but you better damn well make sure you preserve what's already been done.

I posted earlier about this here: http://www.gearslutz.com/board/7548431-post23.html

[MusicTrax]

I would add that the Motion Picture Academy is extremely concerned about the long-term storage of digital pictures and sound over time, particularly for indie films. I have worked on at least two projects where, less than five years later, we had massive amounts of problems dealing with corrupted data on LTO and DTF backup tapes. This resulted in almost a million dollars of redos for a major studio. I also ran into a situation where an Oscar-winning film had a final mix on DASH digital reel tapes that would not play because they were shedding; luckily, we had a 6-track SR 35mm mag that was stellar, and that's what was used for the HD restoration. Sounded phenomenal, even 20 years old.

The AMPAS report on the "Digital Dilemma" as they call it is at this link:

The Digital Dilemma 2 | Science & Technology Council | Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences

The great think about film archives is, we know that stuff will play back in 50 years. Let me know how a digital file works in 20 years, let alone 50. Data migration, data format changes, deteriorating backups... these are all major headaches for which there are no easy solutions.

[insomaniac]

Originally Posted by MusicTrax

I have worked on at least two projects where, less than five years later, we had massive amounts of problems dealing with corrupted data on LTO and DTF backup tapes. This resulted in almost a million dollars of redos for a major studio.

I can't stand LTO. The actual process of backing up to or restoring from an LTO takes ages, and even then it's not guaranteed that everything will go as it should. The lack of a standardized TOC makes it a huge pain, forcing you to pull off 400+ GB of data just to find a few files. I really don't trust it at all.