Richard,
I recently purchased two El Nikkor enlarging lenses, a 135mm and a 150mm, both newer. They were a steal. I might part with the 135 since the 150 is so close. I bought them for my 4x5 and hope to get a head Michael Smith sells for enlarging on azo to go along with it. Now that is expensive!!
Just because someone like Costco said that they were not carrying film does not mean that 35mm is dead. They are making the best decisions that they feel to optimize their profit and who can blame them? Just look around and it is everywhere. Walmart and my local Krogers has B&W portable cameras as well as a diverse and well stocked 35mm line up. 120 takes some looking to find, but I found Agfa 120 print film in Germany at a small grocery.
The motion picture industry will continue for many years to be a large consumption sink for small format film as even Kodak is doing very well in this individual department. As someone said earlier, that fact alone will save our bacon in this size.
Continue shooting and buying 35mm film is the best thing you can do to support the business.
Keep the faith. It will always be around - the specific emulsion may change but so what?
Cheers!
As long as we're on the general subject, what about this. Despite the proliferation of digital image-making, I note that the theatrical film industry still originates/distributes its product in color negative.
I am wondering how long before digital technology will allow the "Hollywood" filmakers the capability of distributing their films via telephone lines (or satellite) versus striking/shipping tons of prints.
BTW, can you imagine (this is hypothetical, so don't anyone get bent out of shape with me!) fast-forwarding 20 years (or less) and discovering that "Hollywood Actors" are no longer in demand. Imagine they have all been replaced with electonically generated "actors."
"Why, when I was your age, son, movies were really movies ... none of this electronically generated imaginary crap." Ha, ha!
Robert McClure, What you suggest is already happening. Arriflex, Dalsa Digital and Panavision have over the last couple of years introduced Electronic Imaging Motion Picture Cameras with a single 35mm sized CMOS or CCD chip, masked with a Bayer filter. These are 8-12 megapixels on a target the size of 1/2 frame 35mm still format. The results are very promising when compared to film originated material and because the editing workflow is all digital now, it begs to be adopted as the new way for making theatrical films. These cameras, btw, accept all of the optics that the motion picture industry currently uses and the ARRI and DALSA feature optical viewing systems as well, very much liked by the film community. That said, a number of motion pictures have already been produced with the Panavision modified Sony Cine Alta and the Panasonic Varicam, both 2/3" prism optic cameras that fall far short of the other cameras I mentioned. Digitally stored films (both conventionally shot on film and originated electronically) with surround sound and all of the rest have been successfully delivered to theaters already and projected on very expensive Christie digital cinema projectors. The number of problems that this solves is enormous when you think about it. The expense of shipping, the security of films being "sidetracked" while in transit, the hassle of assembling and breaking down reels, the fragility of film and its propensity to get scratched, the elimination of mechanical jitter, the cost of the raw materials and their finite life all contribute to the argument for digital delivery. Every year at the National Association of Broadcasters convention (the last 20 of which I have attended) there is a digital cinema symposium where the progress of this transition is discussed in detail. It's only a matter of time.... a time shorter than we all think. Is digital better than film? Not a yes or no answer to that. They look different. George Lucas says he'll never shoot film again and Steven Spielberg says he'll be the last guy using film, so even the great Hollywood directors can't agree.
Robert Zeichner, do you happen to know what is the investment required to equip a theater with digital projection equipment? And approximately how long the useful life of the equipment is likely to be? It seems to me that that those are the numbers that will determine how fast the transition in distribution technology occurs.
As for whether you can buy film at Costco or Walmart, those of use who work in B&W got used to not being able to buy film at the drugstore a long time ago, and we're getting used to not being able to buy darkroom supplies at local camera stores too. You can still get what you need from mail order specialist suppliers, you just have to plan and order ahead. If people don't care about the medium enough to put up with that minor inconvenience, then the materials are most certainly going to go away.
The bottom line remains as Michael said:
Continue shooting and buying 35mm film is the best thing you can do to support the business.
Oren, You are on the right track if you are thinking that the high cost of this transition is the stumbling block for theaters already suffering from the widespread popularity of DVD's and home theater systems. Costs of the projector are not too bad as I recall, around $80k. The projectors will probably be cheaper to maintain and currently share many of the same components of their sprocketed predecessors and will not entail the mechanical wear associated with a film transport. The audio has already been in place for a while now and is handled off optical disc to which the film projector is synchronized. A number of theaters in major metro areas that are typically cineplex operations of 10-20 theaters have converted one or two of their rooms to digital projection. As far as the security issues are concerned Dan, twisted pair and cable are simply not in the plan. We're talking satellite receivers with very sophisticated encryption and until that is fully tested and adopted, probably private ultra secure couriers. The film distribution business has been under the protective eyes of the FBI for years and you can bet there will be no system for downloading feature films that isn't thoroughly thought out and very secure.
Robert, I personally don't like the Christie projectors because its like looking at a huge computer monitor. I keep seeing the jagged edges of everything. I would far rather watch 16mm rather than movies on those machines.
As far as film's demise, I visited two Seattle stores, Optechs and Glazers. Optechs has put all of their film and chemicals on 50% discount to get rid of them, as they are going all digital. Glazers has swapped the film from the large building to the small building, and the digital from the small building to the large building. In the Glazer's film store, there's quite a few things with huge discounts on them.
"It's the way to educate your eyes. Stare. Pry, listen, eavesdrop. Die knowing something. You are not here long." - Walker Evans
Robert, thanks as always for sharing your insights - I learn something every time. To this outsider, it looks as though the movie theater business, like the photographic film business, is also facing some pretty deep challenges as a result of technological change - but in this case not so much the film-to-digital change as what you pointed out, the popularity of DVDs and home theater.
If the revenue shift from the theater channel to the home market stays at its current pace for much longer, theaters may not be able to afford to invest much in new digital equipment. But I imagine that if that happens, the demand for film stock will still decline, simply because the overall decline in theater attendance will likely result in a consolidation in the theater business. In any case, it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
"Single-shot" hobbyist and fine art photography have always been the beneficiary of advances in cinematography and commercial photography habits. Why was Tri-X developed in the first place, and so on. We will continue to get tremednous advances in imaging, but not in conventional film-based photography. Actually, I am amazed how many 120 B&W and color emulsions are still being manufactured-I see those going away next. While scrambling, I don't believe Kodak has helped itself with so many names at the drugstore/Target: Gold, High Definition, Royal, etc. I don't know what's in each box. Actually, Ektapress was a great emulsion-where is it? For 35mm, I stick with Fuji Superia 400. As for digital cinema, inevitable, but we will have lost something wonderful. There is a difference when the movies are shot on film and the actors are in real settings.
"...I personally don't like the Christie projectors because its like looking at a huge computer monitor. I keep seeing the jagged edges of everything. I would far rather watch 16mm rather than movies on those machines."
The problem is that without knowing for certain how the original material was generated or dealt with in post, you can't know whether the projector is imparting the aliasing or if it was in the digital media itself. I'm guessing it's the latter. The projectors themselves can and do make impressive pictures and I've seen this for myself at a local SMPTE presentation with the same material projected conventionally and digitally on two adjacent screens in a local cineplex. Yes, there are differences and being a film guy myself, I would probably pick film as the ideal delivery medium. But, just as there was resistance from the congnacenti to the original 3-chip video cameras over the old tube types, with most folks embracing the advantages from an operational standpoint and using the newer technology, I think it will work the same way with digital imaging taking over the theatrical film business. There will be a period of accepting some of the shortcomings in order to gain the delivery advantages et al and then as more of the newer technology is embraced, there will be a gradual improvement to it and the resulting look. There have thus far been no full length theatrical releases originated on the Arri D-20, Dalsa Origin or Panavision Genesis to my knowledge. These cameras are still in a sort of beta test mode. When these types of productions hit the digital theaters I think many film advocates will be impressed and it will only get better. You can't compare them to the present day 1080i or 720p 3-CCD prism optic "Video" cameras.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks