Kodak/Hollywood film commitment

**Drew Wiley** · 11-Feb-2015, 09:53

Digital projection is all about driving independent theaters out of business by forcing them to invest in very expensive new equip they can't really afford, and thereby establishing an oligarchy of just a few massive studios. Everybody knows this. Sure, you get rid of some lint and flickering on the reel. But quite a few folks simply dislike the look of digital projection. Economically, all the big bucks are geared to teenage action flicks in multiplexes anyway. I got talked into
seeing one of those. Sat around forever waiting thru endless digital ads for more upcoming digi flicks. Guess they wanted you to buy as much popcorn and soda as possible in the interim. I have to wear earplugs in those venues because the volume is so high that the ears hurt. Great place to catch a virus too. If you've seen one multiplex or shopping mall, you've seen em all anyway. Most of the seriously acted films have to been seen in small venues, cause they're the only ones who do show them. Not that I'll help. Far rather be hiking somewhere with my view camera. If I have to be trapped indoors on a rainy day, it will be in
the darkroom. Do I sound pessimistic yet? But the mere fact that someone like Redford was scraping big bucks to set up a big alt movie venue literally a stone's
throw from where I'm sitting right now (by failed due to zoning), shows that the Lucas types aren't in charge of just everything. And it's interesting to hear some
of the Park City feedback on this same subject. But the evil empire is going to be undercut on the margins by low-budget flicks taken with DLSR's. That obviously
won't help with the volume of real film either. But it is nice to see any reflex of variety. Like I said, artistes tend to rebel. Tell them film is dead, and ....

**Tin Can** · 11-Feb-2015, 10:50

Given the affordable quality of low end LED big TV's. I no longer will go to any theater. As Drew says, the filth, disease and obnoxious viewers have made them unpleasant. They are also expensive.

I make better popcorn at home and can pause for washroom breaks.

I am pretty sure malls and movie theaters are history soon. I buy nearly everything online.

I do support live acting in Chicago's plentiful small theaters. Analog actors that seem so life like...

**Leszek Vogt** · 8-Jul-2015, 17:18

Many of the new productions employ Red, Alexa or similar digi equipment. Only few producers and directors still insist on the quality of 35mm film (color or b&w) these days. Film is expensive in numerous ways. I mean, not just the daily's or copies for edit. Those that work on it (loading into mags) could easily mess things up several hundred times per day (this would have to be reshot)....and when the film is exposed....lots of $'s rides on one magazine....we're talking about many thousands.

The sheer raw stock is on average 5-6-8, etc. :1 shooting ratio. Lab work is expensive....and then before the film is released, the final color adjustments, bla bla bla. With digital, you don't have the onslaught of all this material that takes space, worry about scratches, gate issues, hairballs the size of "trees", keeping the film cool, etc. Copy of each "release" in digital is a breeze....without people having to shake over accuracy and bunch of other issues. Sure, digital brings up various challenges (as well)....but the pluses and savings are obvious to many producers. No matter, making films is expensive....and don't get me started what it costs for the talent.

Personally, I'll go to a local outlet and rent a DVD....125K titles is plenty for me :>)

Les

**Tin Can** · 8-Jul-2015, 23:43

What's a DVD?

**sperdynamite** · 9-Jul-2015, 08:00

Originally Posted by Leszek Vogt

Many of the new productions employ Red, Alexa or similar digi equipment. Only few producers and directors still insist on the quality of 35mm film (color or b&w) these days. Film is expensive in numerous ways. I mean, not just the daily's or copies for edit. Those that work on it (loading into mags) could easily mess things up several hundred times per day (this would have to be reshot)....and when the film is exposed....lots of $'s rides on one magazine....we're talking about many thousands.

The sheer raw stock is on average 5-6-8, etc. :1 shooting ratio. Lab work is expensive....and then before the film is released, the final color adjustments, bla bla bla. With digital, you don't have the onslaught of all this material that takes space, worry about scratches, gate issues, hairballs the size of "trees", keeping the film cool, etc. Copy of each "release" in digital is a breeze....without people having to shake over accuracy and bunch of other issues. Sure, digital brings up various challenges (as well)....but the pluses and savings are obvious to many producers. No matter, making films is expensive....and don't get me started what it costs for the talent.

Personally, I'll go to a local outlet and rent a DVD....125K titles is plenty for me :>)

Les

I think you're overstating some of the issues. Time again people in production have stated that digital capture has it's own range of problems, teams, expenses, etc. You can probably shoot a lot more, but I don't know if you can say that's it's appreciably cheap. Both however are relatively small potatoes in the overall budget of a serious project. If cost was outrageous, then Walking Dead would be shot on Alexa, and producers would start saying no to JJ and Christopher Nolan. It's true at the smallest level of production that cheaper capture can be a big deal. However I would argue that if you're past that 1st or 2nd small project, and you've found your voice, getting a budget for Super 16 isn't that hard (in the context of how difficult it is to get ANYTHING funded). I've seen so much great Super 16 work lately. It can be beautiful with films like 50D, or moody and grainy with 500T.

As for projection...well I think it starts to get complicated. I believe it's possible for a scan to retain the imaging properties of film when done well. It doesn't just become Alexa video after you transfer it. I prefer a film projection when IMAX is in play certainly, or other large format film stocks. However, even if you shot your picture on Super 16, I don't mind the images I'm seeing from a 4k projector, and that technology will continue to get better. What matters for me is that a given artist is able to capture in his chosen format, and then show that project in a way that best represents that vision. I think sometimes a 4k projection of a Super 35 shot film CAN be better than an aging release print. For my part, my 2k scans from the Super 8 films I do for personal work and weddings look pretty fantastic. Possibly better than they would have projected with a consumer projector. Plus i can edit them in Final Cut and play them on my 4k tv, and even share portions on freaking instagram. You better believe the original imaging properties of Super 8 are retained even though it's a hybrid digital workflow. In many ways, we have the best of both worlds now. And as long as penny pinching heads are removed from asses, I look forward to many years of Star Wars films shot with modern IMAX cameras and films.