Celluloid no more: distribution of film to cease by 2013 in the US

[buggz]

Celluloid no more: distribution of film to cease by 2013 in the US
A report projects movie studios will go completely digital in the near future.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/06/the-silver-screen-no-more-distribution-of-film-to-cease-by-2013-in-the-us/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+arstechnica%2Findex+%28Ars+Technica+-+All+content%29

[vinny]

hooray!

[dsphotog]

If that's true, acetate film base production will be a very small niche market. We may be coating our own glass plates sooner than I expected.

[georgl]

Another superficial article, they talk about distribution and therefore print film - it has nothing to do with acquisition (not even the same stock) or still photography.

[Drew Wiley]

Anybody know how long it's been since still film was made on celluloid base - nearly a hundred years?

[Sevo]

Anybody know how long it's been since still film was made on celluloid base - nearly a hundred years?

It already got unpopular before WW I after a series of disastrous cinema fires. It was widely banned as a consumer material by the twenties, and phased out as a professional projection material by the fifties (indeed, there had been moves to make acetate security film obligatory in the thirties, but celluloid saw a comeback due to wartime economies). As process film and motion picture taking stock it kept around until polyester bases became widespread - for multi-strip colour processes and optical masking effects its dimensional stability sometimes was still needed up into the seventies.

[bigdog]

Another superficial article, ...

It also only "projects" ... :rolleyes:

[brucetaylor]

I read an article elsewhere that reported more specifics: it was 20th Century Fox that declared they would stop distributing film prints by the end of 2013.

So a bit less dire, but still a concern. There are thousands of theaters around the world in less wealthy areas that will be projecting film for some time, the cost to the theater for converting to digital is high. An acqaintance of mine is a filmmaker, a significant part of the National Cinema of Ecuador. He shoots digital to save money (they can shoot more films per year that way), but has to convert to film for distribution because the towns have film projectors in their theaters.

There are a lot of big players in Hollywood that still prefer to shoot motion picture film, but that acquisition infrastructure has been supported by the striking of thousands of prints for distribution.

[Sevo]

There are a lot of big players in Hollywood that still prefer to shoot motion picture film, but that acquisition infrastructure has been supported by the striking of thousands of prints for distribution.

Has it? I am not particularly up to date, but back when I studied cinematography, taking and print film used different processes. Besides, in Germany the labs dealing in originals, edit copies and internegatives generally were not handling bulk prints - the former were associated with the studios, the latter were part of the distribution system.

[Steve Smith]

So a bit less dire, but still a concern. There are thousands of theaters around the world in less wealthy areas that will be projecting film for some time, the cost to the theater for converting to digital is high.

It appers to me that a lot of cinemas in the US are owned by large corporations. In the UK they are owned by smaller companies, and in many cases, individually, privately owned. These cinemas will not want to invest the thousands of £ necessary in something which might be obsolete in a few years when their optical projectors still work fine.


Steve.

[vinny]

Another superficial article, they talk about distribution and therefore print film - it has nothing to do with acquisition (not even the same stock) or still photography.

Oh, okay. Kodak and fuji sell more motion picture film (negative/print) than any other type. Do you think they're going to keep their doors open just for the LF forum members?

[evan clarke]

Vinny, I've made this argument time after time, our types don't even figure in the marketing strategy. Kodak at one time had annual capacity of 750 MILLION square yards if film. Divide that by the amount of sheet film we use and see how many people it would take to keep Kodak lines going..Astronomical, so running out to buy 100 extra sheets won't make much difference...

[BrianShaw]

We'll see; time will tell.

[Drew Wiley]

A largely unrelated subject. Supply of film base in the critical element, not coating machines per se. Celluloid has had nothing to do with still photography for nearly a century.

[Sevo]

A largely unrelated subject. Supply of film base in the critical element, not coating machines per se.

That has often been claimed - but if any, only 135 film might be affected by that. Neither medium nor large format share the film base with any motion picture product.

[Drew Wiley]

Some confusion here, and I'm not expert at it. But movies being shot on film is itself a different subject than them being massed-produced (copied) for projection use, which is
what is potentially being phased out or must be run on more expensive polyester base.
Digital projection is what is being contemplated, not film versus electronic capture per se,
or nowadays, hybrid effects. But movie films and still films are completely different emulsions anyway, so the only thing involved in common is cumulative corporate dollars
of profit or loss - an important subject - but they could be selling orange juice on the side
and it would still affect the bottom line.

[brucetaylor]

Sevo: there are so few photochemical labs left that they generally produce projection prints too, that's where the money is. At least in my experience in LA. The studios send the negative to places like Deluxe. there was a recent development where Technicolor got out of the photochemical business altogether, partnering with Deluxe for all chemical lab work. Technicolor is now all digital postproduction.

[brucetaylor]

Digital projection is what is being contemplated, not film versus electronic capture per se,


Film capture follows film distribution, at least that has been the case for the last few years. One of the largest rental houses in LA (Otto Nemenz) is auctioning off ALL of their film related cameras and related gear tomorrow here (http://auctions.tigergroupllc.com/cgi-bin/mndetails.cgi?tigergrp45)

[toyotadesigner]

Just because a business (industry) is changing technology in the US, it doesn't mean that the rest of the world is in the same position.

http://www.photoness.de/yodo_analog/

Check images # 4 through #14

Really impressive! If this is what some people call 'film is dead', I really can live with dead film (which I actually do and enjoy)

[lecarp]

Seems somewhere else on the web I read we will all perish by late December 2012. So I guess it makes sense that there will be no film distribution in 2013.

[roresteen]

Well, maybe Kodak and Fuji won't bother with still photography emulsions, but it seem that Ilford, Efke, and Adox have done just fine producing and selling BW film. I could live with that, if need be...but let's face it, there are millions of film photographers who want film. I imagine Kodak/Fuji can and will make film to satisfy that market at a profit.

[buggz]

I just started 4x5 this year, I am wondering if this was a bad choice for me to have waited so late...
BW is okay, but I still like color.
I do not like, nor want the omission of color, and am getting peeved that this is okay to do.
Sigh, nothing I can do about it though.
Just saying...

[Mark Sawyer]

Anybody know how long it's been since still film was made on celluloid base - nearly a hundred years?


It already got unpopular before WW I after a series of disastrous cinema fires. It was widely banned as a consumer material by the twenties, and phased out as a professional projection material by the fifties (indeed, there had been moves to make acetate security film obligatory in the thirties, but celluloid saw a comeback due to wartime economies). As process film and motion picture taking stock it kept around until polyester bases became widespread - for multi-strip colour processes and optical masking effects its dimensional stability sometimes was still needed up into the seventies.


Celluloid has had nothing to do with still photography for nearly a century.

There seems to be some confusion running through the thread...

Cellulose nitrate film was the highly flammable film, and the reason it was illegal to yell "Fire!" in a movie house. It was the first flexible film (used in the first Kodak), introduced in 1888 and phased out in the 1930's. It was replaced by "Safety Film", the non-flammable cellulose acetate. This was later replaced by an improved version, cellulose triacetate, which was used on photographic films into the 1970's. Polyester polymer film bases came in during the 1960's, and as far as I know, have been the only film bases used since the late 1970's, but it's entirely possible that small manufacturers used cellulose triacetate longer.

But we've been on polyester quite a while now...

[Drew Wiley]

Thanks for the clarification, Mark. So what's the fuss all about to begin with?

[Mark Sawyer]

I'm not sure what the fuss is about, but I think we should be outraged that we're making our negatives on the same material disco leisure suits and plaid golf slacks were made out of...

[Drew Wiley]

I strongly prefer polyester film base for its dimensional stability, and suggest that for fabrics they substitute cellulose nitrate - that way all those tacky/trendy clothes would self-combust before going out of style. But most photographs probably deserve to self-immolate too.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I'm not sure what the fuss is about, but I think we should be outraged that we're making our negatives on the same material disco leisure suits and plaid golf slacks were made out of...

HAHAHAHA! Mark, you made my day!:D

[Brian C. Miller]

I'm not sure what the fuss is about, but I think we should be outraged that we're making our negatives on the same material disco leisure suits and plaid golf slacks were made out of...

No, we should be outraged that disco liesure suits and plaid golf slacks aren't made out of nitrocellulose.

[Steve Smith]

Polyester polymer film bases came in during the 1960's, and as far as I know, have been the only film bases used since the late 1970's

According to Ilford's data sheets, 35mm and 120 are coated on acetate and only sheet films are on polyester.

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2010712125850702.pdf


Steve.

[rfesk]

According to Ilford's data sheets, 35mm and 120 are coated on acetate and only sheet films are on polyester.

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2010712125850702.pdf


Steve.

True for Kodak's films also.

[Sevo]

It was replaced by "Safety Film", the non-flammable cellulose acetate. This was later replaced by an improved version, cellulose triacetate, which was used on photographic films into the 1970's.

It is a bit more complex, with various formulations based on diacetate, proprionate, formiate, butyriate and triacetate competing for almost fifty years (all of them plagued with occasionally turning into stinking goo without any obvious reason), until a highly stabilized triacetate was introduced in 1958. Which is still in use today, except for special applications requiring high dimensional stability, where polyester bases directly succeeded nitro film, the whole acetate group having issues in that domain.

[Jan Normandale]

Just because a business (industry) is changing technology in the US, it doesn't mean that the rest of the world is in the same position.

http://www.photoness.de/yodo_analog/

Check images # 4 through #14

Really impressive! If this is what some people call 'film is dead', I really can live with dead film (which I actually do and enjoy)

I believe this is a very old set of photos taken at Yodobashi. If you look at the images you will see many films and products no longer being manufactured. Fuji Acros, Velvia, Astia and Provia Quickloads haven't been available for over a year. Same goes for Polaroid 664 and 53. Kodak has dropped Ultra Color and Vivid Colour. I wonder what the store actually looks like these days. It's definitely not going to show selections like these images.

[Sylvester Graham]

The cost to the theater for converting to digital is high. .

Yes, but studios know that. I believe they are willing to cover the cost of the conversion for some theaters and provide incentives for others. A print costs 10-20k to make, so the 100k or whatever it is to convert Is chump change compared to the savings over time. Studios are publicly traded companies so they do what actually makes sense.

Oh, and what about Bollywood?

[Sevo]

A print costs 10-20k to make,

That is about an order of magnitude above the prices commonly paid, at least in Euros - and I'd assume it to be more expensive hereabouts...

[Sylvester Graham]

You're right, I misremembered the article I had read: http://www.laweekly.com/2012-04-12/film-tv/35-mm-film-digital-Hollywood/

Still expensive.