So how much film DOES the movie industry use?

[f6andBthere]

I read somewhere that the move industry currently consumes between two and three billion feet of film per year!

In still photography terms that equates to between four hundred and six hundred million 36 exp rolls! 😱

 

[Sureño]

film industry is what is keeping all us alive, not Lomographers 😀

 

[Tom A]

That figure looks high to me. Big studios use a million or two million feet for a full length movie. They order it in matched emulsion numbers and usually have left overs that are either re-spooled or re-canned and sold off, once the movie is finished. Some of this film consumption is also in production of duplicating films - which probably account for the majority of demand.
But even a couple of 100 million feet is a respectable figure!
Trivia: In its heyday Kodak collected all the small "punchings" for the sprockets and recycled the silver in them - usually to the tune of $ 4000 000/year (and that was when film was $5-6/ounce!

 

[nimcod]

Trivia: In its heyday Kodak collected all the small "punchings" for the sprockets and recycled the silver in them - usually to the tune of $ 4000 000/year (and that was when film was $5-6/ounce!

I would be intrigued to know how much money the processing labs make back from reclaimed silver from the development of that much film per movie, it would surely be quite an amount!

 

[bob338]

I would be intrigued to know how much money the processing labs make back from reclaimed silver from the development of that much film per movie, it would surely be quite an amount!

My wife worked at the oldest motion picture film processor in Northern California. In their heyday they made more than $1m per year in silver recovery.

Today they don't even process film!

 

[varjag]

I suspect much of this is taken up by distribution of copies for projection in the theaters, not the actual on-stage filming.

 

[HHPhoto]

I read somewhere that the move industry currently consumes between two and three billion feet of film per year!

In still photography terms that equates to between four hundred and six hundred million 36 exp rolls! 😱

AFAIK a Kodak rep from their movie film division made a statement two months ago that they expect the movie film market in 2012 at 4 billion feet.
Most of the stock is used
- in Bollywood
- for movie print film (the copies for the movie theatres).

It is right that lots of TV films are also shot on film, mostly on 16mm.
And all digital movies are archived on special archive film, because it is much safer and is about 10x cheaper compared to digital archiving. Have a look at:
http://www.oscars.org/science-technology/council/publications/index.html

Cheers, Jan

 

[HHPhoto]

film industry is what is keeping all us alive, not Lomographers 😀

No, the film industry is not keeping us film photographers alive.
That is an internet myth.

The facts are:
- most film manufacturers don't produce movie film: Ilford, Lucky, Foma, Fotokemika, Shanghai, Tasma, InovisCoat don't produce movie film

- from the "big three" Kodak, Fuji and Agfa-Gevaert only Kodak has a stronger focus on movie film.
Fuji and Agfa-Gevaert are producing movie film, but the percentage of movie film on their overall film/analogue portfolio is significantly lower compared to Kodak.

- a huge amount of production of silver based products at Fuji and Kodak is not movie film, but colour negative RA-4 paper.
Most people forget that the majority of digital pictures, which are printed, are printed on RA-4 paper (mostly via online photofinishers).

Cheers, Jan

 

[paulcurtis]

Very little mainstream stuff is shot on film these days. It's mostly used in distribution. However it's still used a fair amount around the world, areas like India, South America etc,. where it's easier to shoot with than the current crop of digital cinema cameras which need a lot more 'looking after'.

And a few stubborn directors who won't let it go 🙂

cheers
Paul

 

[HHPhoto]

And a few stubborn directors who won't let it go 🙂

cheers
Paul

Well, it looks like there are quite a few who won't let it go: Tarantino, Spielberg, Scorsese....
Last night I watched a German TV special about the future of cinema with oscar winners Michael Ballhaus, Volker Schlöndorff and the producer of the latest 100 million Euro movie production "Wolkenatlas".
He said for this expensive production they evaluated all digital and analogue shooting techniques. And then decided to shoot the film on 35mm film, because with film they achieve the best quality.
Well, that Ballhaus and Schlöndorff prefer film as well was not a surprise.

Cheers, Jan

 

[haempe]

No, the film industry in not keeping us film photographers alive.
That is an internet myth.

Not in all aspects.
The high consumption of movie film producer keeps the raw products affordable for photo film producers.

 

[HHPhoto]

Not in all aspects.
The high consumption of movie film producer makes the raw products affordable for photo film producers.

Yes and no, because the raw materials (excluded silver) do differ between movie film and photo film stock, it is not all identical.
For example the base material: PET with movie film stock, triazetate with photo films.

But PET is one of the most used materials in chemistry industry: Even if no movie film at all would be coated on PET anymore, that would have no impact on prices, because 99% of PET is used outside the film manufacturing.

Cheers, Jan

 

[haempe]

Yes and no, because the raw materials (excluded silver) do differ between movie film and photo film stock, it is not all identical.
For example the base material: PET with movie film stock, triazetate with photo films.

But PET is one of the most used materials in chemistry industry: Even if no movie film at all would be coated on PET anymore, that would have no impact on prices, because 99% of PET is used outside the film manufacturing.

Cheers, Jan

I agree with you.
But my point was not the raw material, rather crude products and infrastructure.
For example: film ready gelatin, foils for the base, confectioning and coating-machines and service providers, etc.
All this would be much more expensive would be the still photo industry the only buyers.

 

[sevo]

For example: film ready gelatin, foils for the base, confectioning and coating-machines and service providers, etc.
All this would be much more expensive would be the still photo industry the only buyers.

Right. However, coating machines have a big market in flat panel and bioscience test strip production - their makers will be entirely independent from the photographic industry today. Likewise, bioscience grade gelatin will be good for photo.

Film cutting and packing are a more difficult issue - we already lost a variety of formats (110, 126, 127, Disc, probably soon APS) to confectioning issues.

And the dependency of 135 of a tinted base to prevent light piping could have us all carry dark bags for film changing sooner or later - while plenty of clear acetate and polyester/PET films continue to be made for a multitude of purposes, there are no other applications for 35mm film tinted ones...

 

[HHPhoto]

Right. However, coating machines have a big market in flat panel and bioscience test strip production - their makers will be entirely independent from the photographic industry today. Likewise, bioscience grade gelatin will be good for photo.

Yes, and there are several other applications for coating machines. Ink jet paper is coated on the same machines as film and photographic silver-halide paper.
Coating machines will not be an issue, there are some manufacturers in Europe.

Film cutting and packing are a more difficult issue - we already lost a variety of formats (110, 126, 127, Disc, probably soon APS) to confectioning issues.

Film cutting and packing of 135, 120 and sheet film will not be an issue. In Germany alone there are 4 specialised companies for that, one has currently built up two new lines.
110 is intended to be reactivated by one of these companies as well.

And the dependency of 135 of a tinted base to prevent light piping could have us all carry dark bags for film changing sooner or later - while plenty of clear acetate and polyester/PET films continue to be made for a multitude of purposes, there are no other applications for 35mm film tinted ones...

In this regard there is already no dependency from the movie film industry because for movie film a different base is used.
And currently all data looks like we are coming nearer to a stabilisation in photo film consumption. Probably in 3 - 5 years we have reached the bottom and then even a certain increase in demand will happen (similar to other industries where this has happened like vinyl records).

Cheers, Jan

 

[Tim Gray]

Before the big switch over to digital projection (still in progress but getting near the end), the big user of film was release prints. A release print is ~1.5 hours long, 24 fps. I think it's about 1.5 feet per second. That's about 8000 feet per release print. Multiply that by the number of theaters it's released in (usually around 3000-4000), and multiply that by the number of big Hollywood releases per year.

Certainly film origination uses some film, but even if you have a 100:1 shooting ratio, for the 1.5 hour movie, that's only small fraction of the total film usage of the release prints. There's also working negs and dupe copies, but again, the big big piece are the release prints.

As far as many movies not being shot on film... most of the big movies still are. A lot of TV (most of it?) has moved to digital, and there are certainly big budget movies shot on digital, but quite a bit of it is still on film.

 

[wblynch]

I'm waiting for the boutique cinema houses to open up advertising, "All Film Projection - For the Pure Cinematic Experience"

Then I will return to the cinema.

 

[haempe]

I'm waiting for the boutique cinema houses to open up advertising, "All Film Projection - For the Pure Cinematic Experience"

Then I will return to the cinema.

If the transition to digital projection in general is done, this will most likely happen. Niches everywhere... 🙂