Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Don't Sell Your Film Cameras Yet.

David Mullen ASC said:
Mike Most and I have talked about this, that if Kodak really wants to extend the life and usage of film, they should create a cheap desktop scanner of some sort so people can get the film converted to digital easily and cheaply.
Click to expand...

Ah, so others are having the same thoughts! It boggles me why they haven't done this. High res scanners are very cheap nowdays.
 
Shawn Nelson said:
In thinking about the future of Kodak, I've wondered why they don't make revolutionize the telecine process.

I've wanted to shoot film on numerous occasions, but the high cost always pushed me back. If they would instead make telecine very cheap (i.e. you buy a $2500 device that'll telecine all night long) then they'd start making film competitive on the lower end.

....
Click to expand...

David Mullen ASC said:
Mike Most and I have talked about this, that if Kodak really wants to extend the life and usage of film, they should create a cheap desktop scanner of some sort so people can get the film converted to digital easily and cheaply.
Click to expand...


Yep EXACTLY!
Since I tried to scan old family 8mm footage on flatbed scanner I started thinking about it this way.

If somebody will develop cheap continuous film scanner (like with one row of ccd sensor and led light) I would like to use film stock for sure

some homemade telecine
http://www.truetex.com/telecine.htm
http://www.jkcamera.com/digital_printer.htm
http://digireel.blogspot.com/2007/10/background.html
etc

LEGO telecine :clown2:
http://home.comcast.net/~shay.mozes/8mm.html

DSC05345.jpg
DSC05349.jpg
DSC05351.jpg
 
Kodak doesn't have much control over the costs of processing -- they don't own the labs, and the costs are really the tanks of chemicals that need constant replenishment and the people who maintain them, so that's not going to change.

They have control over the cost of film stock, but of course, silver is a major component of film which factors into the cost.

They aren't really in the movie camera business anymore, but they have been developers of scanning technology over the years, hence why developing a low-cost digital scanner for Super-8/16/S16 would be a good marketing move.
 
 
Jack_Felis said:
Well, Kodak has had to do something. I read in The Hollywood Reporter about how they're sticking to their guns on film instead of coming up with some sort of digital cinema solution. If this new stock can do better than the last, more power to them. However, whether the industry responds to their new stock when everyone is falling in love with digital workflows has yet to be determined.
Click to expand...

Who's everyone? I would say 99% of Hollywood features are shot on film and this won't change for a while, at least till the big "masters" retire.
I see digital being more interesting for TV but for feature work, film has a proven quality, tracking record, workflow and reliability that digital just doesn't deliver yet. It will one day and RED is a huge step in the right direction but we are just not quite there yet.
 
CrewPix.com said:
I thought no one owned Panavision cameras but Panavision. Have any Panaflexes ever been offered for sale?
Click to expand...

Finner said:
Your right about that. If someone has panavision cameras and they are not rented then they are stolen.
Click to expand...

He could have been talking about the Panavision Elaine, the 16mm Panavision camera. Panavision sold them once they decided not to continue in the 16mm market.
 
huh? Kodak IS in the digital business for a while. Most of the GigE cameras using CCD chips are Kodak. Basler, Dalsa, Jai, they all sell units which have at the core Kodak sensors, KAI-2020,.. etc etc..
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Mike Most and I have talked about this, that if Kodak really wants to extend the life and usage of film, they should create a cheap desktop scanner of some sort so people can get the film converted to digital easily and cheaply.
Click to expand...

The telecine process is the number reason I have decided to start shooting more digital. its easy to scrounge around for shortends of film, but the high cost of telecine is unavoidable, there is no easy inexpensive way to do it.

any possibility of adapting a red into a telecine machine?
 
they should create a cheap desktop scanner
Click to expand...

They should have done it 10 years ago.

The only thing is keeping film alive is projection. Once projection becomes digital (I hope soon!) you won't see film again. Bye bye forever!!! :red_bandana:
 
stevesherrick said:
I agree with David on this one. Kodak really is the leader in terms of film stock and it would take a digital cinema camera with a feature set better than anything currently available and at a price point in tune with the marketplace for them to jump to number 1 in digital cinema. Maybe they are holding back waiting for the proper time to do that but right now they are still at the top of their game in film. I hope they stay around for a while. I'm one of those people that still enjoys film. Like it has been mentioned, Red adds another palette.

Steve
Click to expand...

So in a few years, when Jim's interest has shifted to building inexpensive space ships, they can buy the Red Digital Cinema company.
 
stevesherrick said:
I'm one of those people that still enjoys film. Like it has been mentioned, Red adds another palette.
Steve
Click to expand...

oh. the old "palette" debate again. this is kinda discussion between film cracks, 99% of the viewers won't see and don't care about the subtle differences between 7218 and 7229 resp. 5218 and 5229. excuse me, but the only things I care are easier and faster work with nearly the same image quality, that's enough to start with, now let's get better Jim...
 
kalone said:
oh. the old "palette" debate again. this is kinda discussion between film cracks, 99% of the viewers won't see and don't care about the subtle differences between 7218 and 7229 resp. 5218 and 5229. excuse me, but the only things I care are easier and faster work with nearly the same image quality, that's enough to start with, now let's get better Jim...
Click to expand...

The thing is, it's not the same image, and that's not a bad thing. Red footage looks great, but it's got its own look. My only point on this issue has been why the urgency to get rid of film? Red will do fine with film still around as an option for the very reasons you mentioned, faster and great image quality. But it's not the same thing as film. It's fine to like Red more than film or vice versa. When you mention viewers don't notice the difference, this may be true but only when both formats are used properly, i.e. good lighting, art design, costuming, makeup, etc. When production values are high, people are less likely to care what the format it originated on.

Kalone, what exactly is it about having a wide palette that bothers you? I'm just curious, because in other art mediums, the artists have choices and it's what they do with those various tools that makes their art unique. Thoughts?

Steve
 
Audiences may not care about "palettes" but they expect filmmakers to because they are supposed to care about such things so audiences can just sit back and enjoy the movie. What sort of serious artist sets his standards based only on what the average person can notice???

Artists care about "palettes".

I mean, look at Jim and the RED team -- so you want them to set their standards based on what the average audience member will notice? Why even build a 4K camera then? Most audiences can't tell the difference between HD and 4K. Most audiences aren't going to notice compression artifacts, noise problems, chromatic aberrations, aliasing artifacts unless they are really huge. Most audiences can't tell a crappy old zoom from a modern prime.

Has modern filmmaking become about minimal effort and care? Is it just about foisting off the lowest possible quality that you think the audience will accept?

We, as filmmakers, care about the fine details that go into our movies because we consider it a craft and an art, and caring about the little things is what artists and craftsmen do. And that includes caring about the "palette", the texture, of the photographic image.

And besides, one could argue that the extra wide exposure latitude of color negative could be a time-saver in some shooting situations where you can't control the contrast... I mean, if we're going to dump on film as being too time-consuming to use, it doesn't explain the fact that I know someone who shot a feature film, in 35mm anamorphic no less, in four days, 20 pages a day. A monster movie at night.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Audiences may not care about "palettes" but they expect filmmakers to because they are supposed to care about such things so audiences can just sit back and enjoy the movie. What sort of serious artist sets his standards based only on what the average person can notice???
Click to expand...

I would think that most artists in this medium are highly creative individuals who are constantly challenging themselves to come up wuth fresh, and exciting new ideas. If this was about status quo, we'd all be accountants (accountants don't take offense, you are highly important)

Artists care about "palettes".
Click to expand...
Absolutely!

I mean, look at Jim and the RED team -- so you want them to set their standards based on what the average audience member will notice? Why even build a 4K camera then? Most audiences can't tell the difference between HD and 4K. Most audiences aren't going to notice compression artifacts, noise problems, chromatic aberrations, aliasing artifacts unless they are really huge. Most audiences can't tell a crappy old zoom from a modern prime.
Click to expand...
I believe audiences have become more knowledgeable about the filmmaking process over the years, perhaps more than we give them credit for. I had a relative ask me the other day if the movie Collateral was filmed in HD. The fact that they even asked me that surprised me.

Has modern filmmaking become about minimal effort and care? Is it just about foisting off the lowest possible quality that you think the audience will accept?
Click to expand...
The way budgets are being cut at an alarming rate, it does seem like their is an attitude of fast, cheap, and out of control. The less lighting, i.e. the less work to get the job done, the better for the bottom line. Of course, that is a generalized statement. There is still a lot of high quality work being done in all genres of medium production, but that approach does seem to be more prevelant.

We, as filmmakers, care about the fine details that go into our movies because we consider it a craft and an art, and caring about the little things is what artists and craftsmen do. And that includes caring about the "palette", the texture, of the photographic image.
Click to expand...
Well said David!

And besides, one could argue that the extra wide exposure latitude of color negative could be a time-saver in some shooting situations where you can't control the contrast... I mean, if we're going to dump on film as being too time-consuming to use, it doesn't explain the fact that I know someone who shot a feature film, in 35mm anamorphic no less, in four days, 20 pages a day. A monster movie at night.
Click to expand...
Good point.

Steve
 
I just think the argument for using digital has got to get away from the "audience doesn't care about..." line of thinking. That road leads to bad places. The unspoken subtext is "hey, it's cheap and it doesn't look as good as film, but who cares? I don't, the audiences don't..." Promote the positive aspects, but don't take a negative and then justify it. And I know Kalone wasn't saying that he doesn't care about image quality, but the echoes of that old "audiences don't care" argument are in there.

When I make a movie, how ideas are communicated to audiences matter, but that doesn't mean that the audience is the defacto filmmaker, they don't chose what color dress the actress wears or whether I key from the left or the right side, or whether I use a 50mm or a 75mm lens for an over-the-shoulder. The audience leaves those details to the filmmaker, and "palette" is one of those details.
 
Shawn Nelson said:
In thinking about the future of Kodak, I've wondered why they don't make revolutionize the telecine process.

I've wanted to shoot film on numerous occasions, but the high cost always pushed me back. If they would instead make telecine very cheap (i.e. you buy a $2500 device that'll telecine all night long) then they'd start making film competitive on the lower end.

The reason for such a move would be that the "low end" of today (students, indies, up and comers ,aka the 'wannabees') are tomorrow's "high end" clients.

Now I already know they'll cut deals for students of film schools, but they need to fundamentally alter the process in order to really compete with digital. Heck, they are doing it with still cameras. You drop off your roll of 35mm still and you can get a CD back of HQ scans!
Click to expand...

This is probably the single most effective thing Kodak could do to extend the life of film as a cinematic medium.

Arguments against it might include:

1. Telecine on a big-budget film barely shows up on the budget, and therefore there's no need to reduce the cost of it.

2. You would be undermining the profitability of high-cost telecine houses.

3. So few of these low-cost telecine devices would be sold that the product would probably never become profitable.

However, the critical point that Kodak apparently misses in this whole thing, as Shawn points out, is that the persons who would most benefit are the film students and low-budget film makers -- the FUTURE of the film industry. If new filmmakers are forced by cost considerations into a digital workflow, and that workflow proves to be perfectly satisfactory, they won't be likely to consider using film when budget constraints are no longer an issue.

I recognize that there are film development costs, etc., in addition to telecine, but those costs can be reduced by getting clever and creative. The huge hit of telecine makes it much more difficult to manage the cost of using film -- and dramatically reducing the cost of telecine for the low-budget filmmaker would be a smart move.

Personally, I'm already focused on the digital path and at this point have no intention of considering film. But it is definitely a fact that the cost of telecine has played a significant role in my abandoning the idea of using film.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Audiences may not care about "palettes" but they expect filmmakers to because they are supposed to care about such things so audiences can just sit back and enjoy the movie. What sort of serious artist sets his standards based only on what the average person can notice???

Artists care about "palettes".

I mean, look at Jim and the RED team -- so you want them to set their standards based on what the average audience member will notice? Why even build a 4K camera then? Most audiences can't tell the difference between HD and 4K. Most audiences aren't going to notice compression artifacts, noise problems, chromatic aberrations, aliasing artifacts unless they are really huge. Most audiences can't tell a crappy old zoom from a modern prime.

Has modern filmmaking become about minimal effort and care? Is it just about foisting off the lowest possible quality that you think the audience will accept?

We, as filmmakers, care about the fine details that go into our movies because we consider it a craft and an art, and caring about the little things is what artists and craftsmen do. And that includes caring about the "palette", the texture, of the photographic image.

And besides, one could argue that the extra wide exposure latitude of color negative could be a time-saver in some shooting situations where you can't control the contrast... I mean, if we're going to dump on film as being too time-consuming to use, it doesn't explain the fact that I know someone who shot a feature film, in 35mm anamorphic no less, in four days, 20 pages a day. A monster movie at night.
Click to expand...

Agreed and well said!

Subtleties determine true distinction ... because is it not, in fact, the "fine details" that differentiates a master artist from all other aspirants?

It is the layers and layers of subliminal attention that draws out the powerful visceral emotional response we as filmmakers seek to evoke, and each emotion requires a distinctly different "palette".

An audience may not know exactly what it is that they are noticing, however EVERY time we sit down to view a production of any type, we DO notice and feel and response to so much more than we ever realize.

It is up to the filmmakers to make sure that the audience really CARES about what they are seeing.

e.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top