PREMATURE BURIAL FOR 35mm FILM

27 Comments

• | Reply

• Jamie | May 13, 2013 6:23 PMReply

  I totally agree with this article. It's the Vinyl vs digital argument again. I am totally in favour of shooting on film and will also continue to do so as long as it is available. Steven Spielberg (films biggest supporter) thinks around "6 years" until the final processing lab in Hollywood closes.

• Nicolette Baker | April 17, 2013 7:43 PMReply

  I am the managing director of the only Art Cinema in Costa Rica and Central America, called Sala Garbo. We have been screening films in35mm for over 36 years. We are totally independent, as we buy the films we choose. Obviously this is our major investment as each films costs us an average of $4.000 in rights plus copy and freight. Now we are being bullied into digital which means an investment of aprox.$50,000.00 which is an astronomical figure for an independent cinema. We had to wait till a 35mm copy of AMOUR turned up in Colombia for us to be able to show it. Your article about films still being made in 35mm gives me hope in surviving at least a few months more.!!!

• Michael Goldman | March 27, 2013 12:55 PMReply

  John makes an excellent point. Large scale tentpole films in the anamorphic format are moving toward, not away from, film in SOME cases recently because the filmmakers like the aesthetic and their product is box office big enough to afford it under certain circumstances. Thus, the new Star Trek and Spiderman films are being shot on film with Imax material included right now, even though the first Spiderman film under Marc Webb was a digital affair. They are following the Christopher Nolan/Wally Pfister model rather than the Cameron model. such films can then be converted to 3D with improving techniques for digital 3D exhibition and big box office. the issue, i think, is will smaller films, indies, etc, have the choice of film or only the tentpoles? and is there enough of a market for this approach for Kodak to make a business model going forward to supply film stock given their recent economic woes? the business model is the issue. but creatively, there is no question there is still a demand for film from the filmmaking community. i'll be writing about this in the near future ...

• Nikhil | March 21, 2013 1:27 AMReply

  Well, film capture, I hope, will still be around, but if you think film is dead as a projection medium, head off to the New Beverly Cinema, where classic and contemporary films are shown, all in 35mm. For March 20 and 21, they will be screening a double bill of Antonioni's "Red Desert" and Bergman's "Through A Glass Darkly", all in new 35mm prints.

• Lluís Grifé | March 20, 2013 5:53 PMReply

  I'll print this digital page on analog paper, because soon this text will become ashes. It's true, on film you can re-telecine in any actual or future format. For example, now we're hearing about ultra-high-definition...it means that all HD cameras are NOW obsolete, instead of a flamant 35 mm film camera rhet have 40 years! Technology is not in the camera...is in the film! How can't you see this?

• Sarahmarie | March 20, 2013 1:59 PMReply

  There is a very interesting research project going on from zdhk in Switzerland.
  
  I was at the presentation of the preliminary results. (there is a good summary in the press release, but sadly only german)
  What surprised me was that, regarding the aesthetic of the picture, the projection seemed to make a great difference while the recording format not so much. At least judging from the effect on the audience measured by interviewing. People prefered analogue projection of celluloid film.
  Digital colorist Florian Martin (Work Flow Solutions for Arri, color graded e.g. The Lord of the Rings) was there and shared a lot of personal thoughts and his own research. His theory involves the vivid grain, as John Bailey does but he placed even more emphasis on the the shutter in the projector: It causes "explosions", as he called it, or flicker, and our eye reacts on that (movement or light impulses or whatever), so we are much more absorbed into the (celluloid) film. He also mentioned that the digital projection has a much better image steadiness, but there would be again the question whether the slightly unsteady image "feels" more organic, and maybe makes the viewer more unconsciously willing to "fall" into the story.
  
  Anyway, I believe as well that there is no way around digital projection - it is the future. The economic advantages are too obvious. But an interesting question is: How will film style develop? So far it seems like everyone is trying to copy the analogue aesthetic with the digital equipment and clolor grading. But I wonder whether another post-filmic style is possible that does not imitate (and compete with) filmic style.

• Sarahmarie | March 20, 2013 2:02 PM

  I was not able to post the link but there is also an introduction about the project in English, google it if you like. The project is called ANALOG/DIGITAL: The Emotional Impact of Film Recording Processes on the Audience.

• Sandi Bachom | March 20, 2013 11:47 AMReply

  My father was a film editor at Walt Disney studios in the 1930's my first toy was a yellow film core. As a producer, I remember so many iterations of film/tape and when Kodak discontinued 5254 film, we all thought film was dead then! I love this movie and its message. Saw it at Traverse City Film Festival. I call myself a filmmaker, even though I shoot digital. The Sight and Sound students at NYU (Scorcese's class) had their last film class a couple of years ago. The thing that terrifies me, film lasts 100 years, digital...not so much. I sure hope they figure it out. The first thing I ever learned as a young producer is how to thread a Moviola. I think every film student should hold a piece of 35mm film, touch it, hold it to the light and splice it with mylar. THEN go make the great American film. I love this film, should be required viewing for everyone who makes, or just loves, film.

• Jesse | March 20, 2013 11:28 AMReply

  Argo had moments of film but was largely shot on the ALEXA. More and more nominees each year (especially in Cinematography) are from the cinematographer using a digital format. In 5 years alone there went from being NO digital nominees to at least one each year, and with the exception of Wally Pfister's win for Inception ALL winners have been digital.
  
  Life of Pi (2013) Anna Karenina, Skyfall also digital.
  Hugo (2012) Girl with the Dragon Tattoo also digital
  Avatar (2010) no other digital nominees
  Slumdog Millionaire (2009) no other digital nominees
  
  I've worked successfully with both mediums but film and film processing are quickly fading.

• Ben Morgan | March 21, 2013 1:06 AM

  Life of Pi, Hugo and Avatar all winning Best Cinematography shows what a joke that particular Academy Award is these days. Though I will admit I was visually impressed with Skyfall. The Alexa has a lot of promise. But it's not there yet.

• S Martin | March 20, 2013 3:33 PM

  And Anna Karenina was 100% film. Don't know why you included that.

• S Martin | March 20, 2013 3:26 PM

  No, Argo was NOT shot mostly on the Alexa; it was shot mostly on film. A few shots of Ben Affleck driving by DC landmarks at night were done with the Alexa, and so were the scenes that are actually set in Turkey, like when Affleck's in the Hagia Sophia. This was only a couple minutes of footage.

• timmanna | March 18, 2013 11:23 PMReply

  Yes nice to hear stock shoot are better than digital. But whatever difference between two technology , I still feel film is better then digital . Because any technical parson need good environment feel enter in to it

• Lincoln Spector | March 18, 2013 7:36 PMReply

  As a production format (how you shoot), film is still superior. However, digital is getting closer with each new camera, and it won't be long before it surpasses film in quality. At this point, it's damn close.
  
  As a presentation format (how you project), digital has already surpassed film. An average 2K DCP looks as good as a perfectly-made, pristine print. Unless the print is something very special (say, dye-transfer), I'd rather watch a DCP.
  
  With digital, an inept projectionist ruins only the screening. With film, he also ruins the print.
  
  Lincoln

• JD | March 16, 2013 1:22 AMReply

  Film is dead. Deal with it.

• S Martin | March 20, 2013 3:31 PM

  Vashi: Slumdog Millionaire was about 60% digital, 40% film. The film stuff was five different Fuji stocks.

• vashi | March 16, 2013 2:14 AM

  In reference to all Oscar winning Best Picture Awards being shot on film...I believe Slumdog Millionaire was shot all digitally. Unless a chunk was shot on film? Anyone know for sure?

• Bennie Woodell | March 14, 2013 9:29 PMReply

  This is so refreshing to read. My pledge as of last year was to shoot only on film while it was still available as a medium. I'm getting ready to shoot my next indie feature later this month, and I just bought an Arriflex BL the other day, and we're planning out how much film stock we need to buy. I am so excited to be shooting on film again, haven't done it since I was at film school a decade ago. Film will never die as long as there's people out there who will fight for it!

• HUNTER TODD | March 14, 2013 3:53 PMReply

  Sadly, film is dead for projection. Last year, the 45th WorldFest discovered that our HQ AMC Studio 30 Theaters had gone all digital... Dear AMC did save one 35mm Christie Xexon Projector for us, but a quick review of shipping costs revealed that we would save $15,000 in FedEx & DHL charges alone. A 100lb 35mm print in two shipping cans may weigh 100 pounds, and 100 pounds from Paris to Houston is $800 each way! So WorldFest is now a DigiFest! Sadly. This also greatly affects small art houses, vacation destination theaters and small town theaters that do not have the $250,000.00 to make the conversion to good digital projection. Digital does offer cleaner projection, no dirt or scratches, no framing issues, no burned frames... no build-up! But it simply does not have the look or feel of film. However, the average audience cannot tell the difference. We have asked literally hundreds (thousands, actually) in our audience surveys, and they are unaware of any difference.
  BUT - film is still the King in making 'serious' films... Almost all of our Intl entries, those from Europe, Australia, the Pac Rim, India and Russia are all shot on film, though they come to us on BluRay or DVD. But in the credits, we see the lovely old Kodak logo, sometimes the Agfa or Fuji credits... always good to see... And as an old Kodak VP friend told me years ago, one single 35mm film frame contains 4.5 Million pixels... that times 24 frames a second... Digital will never match Film. Our 46th WorldFest is April 12-21, 157 new intl Indie films at worldfest.org

• Kevin Barry | March 14, 2013 7:15 AMReply

  Leonard, this piece made my day! Nothing equals the alchemy of light projected through emulsion. Godard said, "If I find a film dull, I find it infinitely more entertaining to watch the scratches".

• Karen | March 13, 2013 10:30 PMReply

  Everyone who wonders about this should see the documentary Side by Side, where directors and cinematographers (young and old) passionately debate this topic. We're going to lose something very real when we lose film. Theaters all across the country are trashing out their film projectors, thinking (WRONG!) that they are "modernizing" - out with the old and in with the new? Remember - that was the thinking behind "Urban Renewal" and look where THAT got us! Once you've destroyed it, you cannot bring it back. We're seeing the same foolishness on another level.

• Paul Suarez | March 19, 2013 7:46 PM

  Thanks for that recommendation of SIDE BY SIDE, Karen. I had not heard of that documentary. I'm pleased to find that Netflix rents it on Blu-ray so I've added it to my queue.

• William Dobbs | March 13, 2013 4:53 PMReply

  The first film that I ever saw in a theater was "Mary Poppins". That was quite a few years ago. (I am 54 years old now). That movie started my love of motion pictures. I have collected 16mm film since the 70's. I always prefer the look of film on the screen. It looks more "natural" than the "sanitized" digital image. A few weeks ago, I saw "Skyfall" at my local theater. The manager informed me that the film would be his very last 35mm presentation. It was depressing news to hear. "Skyfall" almost looked three-dimensional on film. The colors looked vibrant. I think it is great that some film makers still utilize 35mm film. THE DIGITAL MEDIUM IS NOT ARCHIVAL!!!

• Jamie | May 13, 2013 6:27 PM

  @'CAPTAIN HOWDY' and 'PAULA - Skyfall was also available in 35mm though!

• H | March 16, 2013 4:51 AM

  I believe the comment is in reference to the projection of the film, not the shooting format

• Captain Howdy | March 16, 2013 1:21 AM

  LOL... Skyfall was shot digital on Arri Alexas and Red Epics. So much for disproving your own expertise.

• Paula | March 15, 2013 7:09 AM

  Er, I believe Skyfall was shot digitally, not on 35mm film.