Hollywood "doesn't have to worry about film going away anymore,"

[kbg32]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/help-star-wars-kodak-ceo-848593

 

[Keith]

I have to wonder about all the other movie studios around the world though ... it ain't just about Hollywood, they are only one part of the equation for the survival of movie film.

 

[kbg32]

Maybe the other studios don't matter that much Keith. Hollywood has a pretty healthy "film" industry, as well as independent filmmakers who use film. Time will tell....

 

[JP Owens]

If I was Kodak, that's what I would say, too. Glad, though, to see there is an effort to keep motion picture film alive for awhile. Opening financially sustainable labs is definitely essential to success. An advantage is that Hollywood is not financially sensitive to the cost of film or processing. Plenty of money to pay whatever Kodak asks.

 

[kbg32]

Here's more - "Star Wars: The Force Awakens’ Was Shot on Film, and Kodak May Be Profitable in 2016"

http://petapixel.com/2015/12/16/sta...-on-film-and-kodak-may-be-profitable-in-2016/

 

[John Bragg]

Problem is that Kodak coat ordinary photo film on the same line as motion picture stock, so long term survival of all Kodak Alaris film is heavily tied in with Hollywood. Long may this trend continue since film is by far not a done deal and it should be treated as an entirely separate and historic medium. There would be no Hollywood without film and film producers should celebrate that.

 

[Timmyjoe]

This is good news for us film shooters.

 

[mwoenv]

How does this work, now that nearly all movie theaters use digital projectors? Is it just shot on film, then seen in a digital copy?

 

[btgc]

How does this work, now that nearly all movie theaters use digital projectors? Is it just shot on film, then seen in a digital copy?

Seems some directors get what they want easier with film and team knowing medium (film and dev costs), some rely on digital and distribution is a digital process, so they make digital copy of edited film.

Recently we were chatting with a friend and couldn't decide if 2 millions of USD (spent for film and dev) is a big deal for 100K film budget, that is, 2%. And how digital cameras relate to film cameras, cost wise - to rent and operate during filming process? I realize there are very expensive digital cameras and some very affordable, say, 10-20 thousands.

 

[BlackXList]

I was a bit annoyed reading this article this morning.

The spin off of Alaris, being dependent on whether Rochester bothered to continue making film wasn't exactly clear from the messages coming from Alaris, and it seems like a pretty sh*tty deal for Alaris.

Maybe it's why they don't seem to have really thrown their weight behind film and been pushing it like mad, because how can you if another arm of Kodak is deciding whether or not to bother making your product any more.

There should have been a guaranteed production period written into the contract, and they should have pushed that as a big positive to all of us worried about film.

I now feel a bit like the same kind of not joined up thinking is still a feature of Kodak, and it's frustrating.

 

[BlackXList]

I want to feel like I can rely on the companies I rely on to get my end results.

Maybe that's a bit silly, especially when using film equipment, as some of the camera companies I use products from don't exist anymore.

When Alaris was created and the CEO asked for feedback, and replied to those emails, I was very hopeful, dealing with the people the next level down was less rewarding, but I gave them the benefit of the doubt because they were getting everything set up.

On a totally personal level, I haven't shot much film since the death of BW400cn, I loved that film, and it was a staple part of my workflow. I'd waxed lyrical about it to the company, and to anyone who would listen.

Obviously I know that they couldn't continue making an uneconomic product just to keep me happy, but when it was discontinued, I decided to replace the stuff I shot with BW400cn with Digital in order to future proof my workflow.
That ended up meaning taking significant time to make sure I'd made the right choices, and spending time with the equipment to get as comfortable as I was with the film equivalents.

I can't shift the feeling that I should be shooting film though, and I like shooting film, reading these articles makes me feel a little like I've been encouraged out onto a ledge to go along with Kodak, and gone willingly, only to look down and go "uhh, you didn't tell us how precarious this was"

 

[BillBingham2]

Problem is that Kodak coat ordinary photo film on the same line as motion picture stock, so long term survival of all Kodak Alaris film is heavily tied in with Hollywood. Long may this trend continue since film is by far not a done deal and it should be treated as an entirely separate and historic medium. There would be no Hollywood without film and film producers should celebrate that.

While I didn't work in film sensitizing, I know that we ran different emulsions for paper on the same machines some years back. Depends upon the emulsion you make up top and send down the pipe to the machines running the stock. From what I was told it was pretty much the same approach for film.

At least that was the way it worked back in the 70's.

Color paper too, only difference between those lines and the B&W lines were total darkness vs safelights.

B2 (;->

 

[BillBingham2]

.... because how can you if another arm of Kodak is deciding whether or not to bother making your product any more.

....

Welcome to the down side of capitalism.....😱

B2 (;->

 

[kbg32]

There are many film makers who prefer the "look" of film. It's organic quality. Whether this will prompt manufacture of film for still photography use, remains to be seen.