ARRI, Panavision and Aaton have ceased production of film cameras

Well said and right on the mark.

DominikDUK said:
Dear Steve these cameras have in fact a tremendous impact on your photography without them Kodak and Fuji would no longer produce Film. Kodak primary income is from Motion Picture Film not Still photography.

Dominik
Click to expand...
 
DominikDUK said:
Dear Steve these cameras have in fact a tremendous impact on your photography without them Kodak and Fuji would no longer produce Film. Kodak primary income is from Motion Picture Film not Still photography.

Dominik
Click to expand...

This is exactly my concern, and why I posted. I'm would "imagine" that (again, ->pure conjecture<- on my part) that movie film, print, and slide film production runs are certainly economically and possibly operationally intertwined, and that it may not be economically viable to run such a facility with just still photography film runs - relatively small compared to movie film consumption with one frame = 1/24th a second in a movie. To me, if true, this means is that there is a definitive endpoint for film production in a decade? Fifteen years? Even if these cameras are kept "alive", production has ceased and all the camera makers in the industry have abandoned to medium. If nobody's using razors, ain't no use for razorblades.
 
Yes, well in fact, we might not even have still photography as we know it today, without cine film - after all it was sprocketed (and readily abundant) 35mm movie film that the orignal Leica was designed to use - a clever move really.
 
NickTrop said:
This is exactly my concern, and why I posted. I'm would "imagine" that (again, ->pure conjecture<- on my part) that movie film, print, and slide film production runs are certainly economically and possibly operationally intertwined, and that it may not be economically viable to run such a facility with just still photography film runs - relatively small compared to movie film consumption with one frame = 1/24th a second in a movie. To me, if true, this means is that there is a definitive endpoint for film production in a decade? Fifteen years? Even if these cameras are kept "alive", production has ceased and all the camera makers in the industry have abandoned to medium. If nobody's using razors, ain't no use for razorblades.
Click to expand...

In order to connect the dots as you have done it requires people to pull their heads out of the sand and stop thinking that there is a film revival sponsored by LOMO et all. It is a sad day and in the worst case could mean that the decline in the availability of film at an economical price will be faster now than in the past 10 years. At the very least it is not good news for still film shooters.

Bob
 
I'm having a hard time believe the motion picture industry is keeping black and white film alive. Does Ilford sell to Hollywood?

Color film, yes, I can see it disappearing but B&W will probably be around (and more expensive) for a while longer.
 
robklurfield said:
arri ... the closest thing in movie equipment to a leica. woe to anyone who drops a 16S on his toe.
Click to expand...

Many years ago I used to have a job that included maintaining 16mm and 35mm Rackover Mitchell motion picture cameras. I remember the movement being a thing of great precision and beauty. I would place it in the Leica category. I wouldn't want to drop one on my foot, either--especially with the motor and film magazine fitted to it!

I've never worked on a Panavision camera, nor seen the inside of one. But they do you the Primo lenses from the canadian Elcan factory. I bet the Golden Panaflex is in the Leica class as well!
 
Dear Andreos I agree that B/W Film has a better chance of survival than color Film. But Kodak's survival is tied to Color Motion Picture Film, Kodak Research for B&W Film comes frome their Motion Picture Division in fact the new Tmax 400 is a direct result of reseach done for the Vision 2 line of MP Films. Film will most likely survive Kodak dismissal but it going to be much more expensive. And by the way to all those who comparing the quality of Leica to a motion Picture camera I have to say even the cheapest Russian Pro 16mm (no Krasnagorsk, no Kiev 16u) is comparable to a Leica. The Cadillac is probably the Mitchell BNCR , because of their image steadiness they are still used for Special Effects work and some of them are over 70 years old. Personally I prefer the Moviecam Compact to most things Arri after all the newest Arri is a Moviecam in disguise. In the 16mm world nothing beats an Aaton 16Xtr prod imho.

Dominik
 
DominikDUK said:
Dear Andreos I agree that B/W Film has a better chance of survival than color Film. But Kodak's survival is tied to Color Motion Picture Film, Kodak Research for B&W Film comes frome their Motion Picture Division in fact the new Tmax 400 is a direct result of reseach done for the Vision 2 line of MP Films. Film will most likely survive Kodak dismissal but it going to be much more expensive. And by the way to all those who comparing the quality of Leica to a motion Picture camera I have to say even the cheapest Russian Pro 16mm (no Krasnagorsk, no Kiev 16u) is comparable to a Leica. The Cadillac is probably the Mitchell BNCR , because of their image steadiness they are still used for Special Effects work and some of them are over 70 years old. Personally I prefer the Moviecam Compact to most things Arri after all the newest Arri is a Moviecam in disguise. In the 16mm world nothing beats an Aaton 16Xtr prod imho.

Dominik
Click to expand...

I think that build quality and engineering is a must for even the lowest end of pro film cameras designed for professional shoots. There's no way they could skimp on anything, really. Camera jams too much? Image not steady? Camera unreliable? Then a production company is out $1,000's - possibly 100's of thousands. Nobody would use that camera, and out of business that company would go... and a trail of lawsuits behind. Even the low-end Revere 16 I owned - similar to a Bolex I guess (though the Bolex is a much nicer camera), was absolutely solid, beautifully constructed, and very reliable. And yes, black and white will most likely survive as a niche/pro/special purpose item, possibly. But as you state - R&D will cease and prices for whatever film is available will skyrocket. Given that there is a cheaper substitute even for this... a well-done digital black and white is no slouch, especially in 35mm... in the worse case, what remains prices itself out of the market. Larger formats is another matter entirely... and perhaps I should have qualified, and I hate to be the alarmist, but this news more so than a lot of the other stuff going on to me points to a definative "for all intents and purposes" endpoint for small format color - and possibly even black and white, film production. I hope I'm wrong.
 
Last edited:
NickTrop said:
I think that build quality and engineering is a must for even the lowest end of pro film cameras designed for professional shoots. There's no way they could skimp on anything, really. Camera jams too much? Image not steady? Camera unreliable? Then a production company is out $1,000's - possibly 100's of thousands. Nobody would use that camera, and out of business that company would go... and a trail of lawsuits behind. Even the low-end Revere 16 I owned - similar to a Bolex I guess (though the Bolex is a much nicer camera), was absolutely solid, beautifully constructed, and very reliable. And yes, black and white will most likely survive as a niche/pro/special purpose item, possibly. But as you state - R&D will cease and prices for whatever film is available will skyrocket. Given that there is a cheaper substitute even for this... a well-done digital black and white is no slouch, especially in 35mm... in the worse case, what remains prices itself out of the market. Larger formats is another matter entirely... and perhaps I should have qualified, and I hate to be the alarmist, but this news more so than a lot of the other stuff going on to me points to a definative "for all intents and purposes" endpoint for small format color - and possibly even black and white, film production. I hope I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Nick,

Over 15 years ago, in school we were told that it cost about $10K a minute for a big production shoot like a Hollywood film.

I can only imagine what it costs today.

Cal
 
Rob-F said:
Many years ago I used to have a job that included maintaining 16mm and 35mm Rackover Mitchell motion picture cameras. I remember the movement being a thing of great precision and beauty. I would place it in the Leica category. I wouldn't want to drop one on my foot, either--especially with the motor and film magazine fitted to it!

I've never worked on a Panavision camera, nor seen the inside of one. But they do you the Primo lenses from the canadian Elcan factory. I bet the Golden Panaflex is in the Leica class as well!
Click to expand...
I'm hardly an expert, but I believe one key advantage of the Panavision is that it is an incredibly quiet camera. This is pretty crucial when sound and dialog are being done with the film. There are location shoots everyday where I live (Pasadena) and the last time I looked the big ones were still using Panavision 35mm. I've seen late model Arriflex Super-16 cameras too being used for commercials and such.
 
The Panavision movement is basically an updated Mitchell movement, although if I remember right it uses a 2 pin registration while the Mitchell uses 4 pins. Both are rock solid.

Mitchell BNCR's are still used for special effects & animation work, but since "the Nightmare Before Xmass" the advent of using DSLR's is now the industry standard.

B&W vs Color Film: TriX and short loads of Plus-x Motion picture film have been discontinued at this point by Kodak. You can only buy Double-X on the Kodak site concerning motion picture film in B&W. 16mm duplicating (Finegrain and Dupeneg) are run only as special order too, which has the archive folks on edge about being able to do proper preservation work for the last few years. Agfa got out of motion picture film years ago, and it was really only a side line for Fuji. I've never seen Ilford (motion picture film) for sale or used in any of the labs I used to work in. On a side note, I do remember that Kodak did do a special order of E6 stock in 1000' and B&H perfed for "Three Kings" many years ago. That was fun stuff to see and play with.

Rob-F said:
Many years ago I used to have a job that included maintaining 16mm and 35mm Rackover Mitchell motion picture cameras. I remember the movement being a thing of great precision and beauty. I would place it in the Leica category. I wouldn't want to drop one on my foot, either--especially with the motor and film magazine fitted to it!

I've never worked on a Panavision camera, nor seen the inside of one. But they do you the Primo lenses from the canadian Elcan factory. I bet the Golden Panaflex is in the Leica class as well!
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
No doubt that film movie cameras are still in use and no doubt they are a thing of beauty construction wise but that is hardly the point. These companies have determined that for their future commercial success they must produce digital movie cameras as that is the direction that they have determined the movie industry is headed. If that is the case and the demand for movie film stock continues to fall the huge machines for making film will eventually become uneconomical to run. I am assuming that these huge machines, in order to run continuously and economically, make movie film stock, colour film stock and B&W film stock in alternate runs. By far the largest runs would be for movie film stock and the shrinking of demand for that stock would lead to excess capacity making it uneconomical to run these huge film making machines. Newer smaller film production machines to meet the demands of a shrunken market will not be as economical to run and the cost to the consumer of new production film stock will eventually increase, maybe even dramatically so. You have lost the economies of scale.

Bob
 
As of B&W. Ilford makes it and doesn't depend on the movie market.

What worries me is color film. We all know about Kodak, and Fuji seems to be Ok still.

The 3D fad is passing away here. My local cinema (9 theater screens) began to convert back when Avatar was released, but it seems that they haven't walked further than converting 2 theaters. There's always 1 screening in 3D, but the others are film.
But, yes, the "damage" is done. Many have converted already.
 
Does Maco/Adox make movie film? I don't think so, and they've effectively re-entered the market in the last couple of years with Rollei and Agfa films.

Someone has a business model which is based on cleaning up when the other producers of film have stopped, I reckon.
 
I believe that both the new Ilford and new Adox companies moved to smaller production facilities in order to serve the remaining B&W film market economically. The only drawback to this is that price increases in raw materials will be passed on quicker to the consumer as was the case with Ilford recently. I don't think anybody stockpiles vast amounts of raw materials on site anymore so there is less of a cushion between increased raw materials cost and passing that along to the end consumer.

Bob
 
Rollei and Agfa film well Agfa film is made by Gevaert and they produce mainly traffic and aerial films, in a few years most or all the radar boxes in use will be digital, as soon as the german airforce stops using aerial film Agfa B/W Film is history. Prest_400 The 3d fad wasn't the reason for european cinemas to turn to digital, the EU and especially Germany actively promoted and founded the conversion to digital cinemas. Calzone a lot of movies cost under 2 Million Euros, quite a few movies cost under 250 000 Euros, the biggest cost factor in the movie Business is advertising (up to 60% of the Budget) followed by the stars (Director, DP, Actor, etc...) not Film Stock (under 700$ for 9 minutes 2 perf 35mm or 5 minutes 4 perf Anamorphic)
What a lot of people seem to forget is that without Kodak or the MP Industrie the raw material used for making film would become much more expensive and harder to get for the little Companies like Ilford and Adox.
 
DominikDUK said:
Rollei and Agfa film well Agfa film is made by Gevaert and they produce mainly traffic and aerial films, in a few years most or all the radar boxes in use will be digital, as soon as the german airforce stops using aerial film Agfa B/W Film is history. Prest_400 The 3d fad wasn't the reason for european cinemas to turn to digital, the EU and especially Germany actively promoted and founded the conversion to digital cinemas. Calzone a lot of movies cost under 2 Million Euros, quite a few movies cost under 250 000 Euros, the biggest cost factor in the movie Business is advertising (up to 60% of the Budget) followed by the stars (Director, DP, Actor, etc...) not Film Stock (under 700$ for 9 minutes 2 perf 35mm or 5 minutes 4 perf Anamorphic)
What a lot of people seem to forget is that without Kodak or the MP Industrie the raw material used for making film would become much more expensive and harder to get for the little Companies like Ilford and Adox.
Click to expand...

Yes. And the REAL bottleneck is likely to be film base (substrate). Without that, everyone is in deep yogurt.

Cheers,

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