The Sudden Death of Film

[keytarjunkie]

Wait...what's going on? Some people are talking about still-camera film, but the topic is about motion picture film.

Kodak recently announced a new type of motion picture film, and I just wrapped shooting a short film on both digital (100ish GB of footage on a 5D mark II) and film (1400 feet on a Bolex 16mm and Canon Super 8, all Kodak 500T and Ektachrome 100). Digital and Film both have a place in the cine world. It's sad that theaters are being so dumb, but I am pretty sure we will see the continuation of motion picture film.

I am not worried at all about the future of 35mm and 120 (although I am worried about 4x5 and larger). I'm quite confident that an impossible-project-type situation would occur, although hopefully it would be better implemented. I don't really know what will happen to Kodak, but I know fuji and ilford aren't backing out anytime soon.

PS the shot they used in the article from The Seventh Seal is possibly my favorite shot EVER. So amazing...

 

[emraphoto]

Given that Kodak just pulled the plug on Plus-X, yeah, it is.

the plug has been pulled repeatedly since i can remember. the market needs to reshape itself to fit with demand and obviously levels have changed.

kodak in Canada has had a less than motivated rep for years. i am not all surprised by the news.

 

[rogerzilla]

Fuji certainly are backing out, with three films at least gone this year (Reala - the only colour film I use, Neopan Acros SS and Neopan 1600). OK, you can push Neopan 400 and few people outside Japan used SS, but Reala is a real blow since there isn't an ISO 100 alternative from Fuji.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Fuji certainly are backing out, with three films at least gone this year (Reala - the only colour film I use, Neopan Acros SS and Neopan 1600). OK, you can push Neopan 400 and few people outside Japan used SS, but Reala is a real blow since there isn't an ISO 100 alternative from Fuji.

Is Reala really gone? When was this announced? And where?
Regards,
Brett

 

[rogerzilla]

Is Reala really gone? When was this announced? And where?
Regards,
Brett

There's a whole thread on it. It's still available in the UK and probably will be for some time to come - we can still get Neopan 1600 easily. I wouldn't heavily stockpile Reala for the freezer though, as I'm not sure about commercial C41 in five years' time.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

There's a whole thread on it. It's still available in the UK and probably will be for some time to come - we can still get Neopan 1600 easily. I wouldn't heavily stockpile Reala for the freezer though, as I'm not sure about commercial C41 in five years' time.

Do you mean this one?
That would be the same one in which any reference to a source for the films demise is conspicuous, only by its absence. Which leads me, again, to ask: Does anyone actually know?
Regards,
Brett

 

[Lilserenity]

I think the terrible communication is part of the problem for Fuji and it is all of their own creation. I know the Internet can spread rumours like wildfire but the rumours only came about from fragmented and partial information that shovelled out piecemeal and badly at that.

Their own PR people in the UK were confused as to what was discontinued.

I stopped using Fuji for this single reason - I had no guarantee of what was discontinued and what wasn't. It started with Pro 800Z a couple of years back and since then it's been hard to work out whether 160NPS/160S/160NS is gone, or is it 120 and large format only? Reala, is it gone, is it not? 800Z definitely gone in 120, but is it in 35mm, yes, no, maybe... Neopan 400 in 120 is gone (never used it anyway), 160C got bumped off... Or did it? There's still lots of stock...

Unfortunately I have been working on a project that demanded at least a little consistency in the colour and Fuji was too unreliable. Some 400H and Superia 200 shots made it into the book, but even though Kodak killed off films whilst on the project, at least it was very clear as to what was happening.

E.g. Kodachrome is dead, last stock will go to channels in October 2009, processing until the end of 2010. Horrible news but we knew where we were. Same with Portra 160NC/VC and 400NC/VC -- sucks that they went but we knew exactly what was happening.

That said, the recent discontinuation of Elite Chrome in all all variants has pretty much killed it for me 35mm colour wise. I love Ektar and will continue to shoot that, as well as Portra in my Autocord but my film cameras (which are all I own at present) are going to be more or less black and white only with Ilford (as I want to support British manufacturing, though I do love Kodak's black and white products...) and the colour work, well I plan on getting a D7000 if I can afford it next year. But that's a big if.

For now I'll keep up the Ektar, Kodak Gold and remainder of Elite Chrome for my colour work. Didn't think this day would come so soon. I'll still take some slides now and then but I'm part of the problem in that respect as I'm not going to be buying it in the future, but will expect it to be around when I do want it! Bad attitude perhaps but E100G/Provia 100F is just too expensive to purchase and process for myself on my wages.

My priority first and foremost is getting pictures, the love of the process comes second in this instance. Though I'd dearly love a digital OM 🙂 (And the 4/3rds offerings don't do it for me.)

Vicky

 

[Aristophanes]

Ebert could be wrong. Kodak, a few days back, announced that they'll soon be introducing a NEW motion picture film:

http://motion.kodak.com/motion/About/The_Storyboard/4294969168/index.htm

That's not the deal breaker. Where I live there are no movies capable of projecting film images. It's all digital now.

If the consumer can only view digital, then the producer can only shoot digital, or incur the added expense of digitizing. Simple economics says the later scenario cannot last long.

 

[Rogier]

That's not the deal breaker. Where I live there are no movies capable of projecting film images. It's all digital now.

If the consumer can only view digital, then the producer can only shoot digital, or incur the added expense of digitizing. Simple economics says the later scenario cannot last long.

This makes me wander why the heck most of us shoot film and then digitize it........ 😱

 

[jackbaty]

In case anyone missed the response by Kim Snyder to Ebert's post:

http://www.rogerebert.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111105/LETTERS/111109987

FWIW.

 

[Sparrow]

Sudden? it's been three days already

 

[Pickett Wilson]

http://www.rogerebert.com/apps/pbcs....TERS/111109987

Well, Kim Snyder, good luck with that. Of course, what else were you going to say?

It doesn't matter how much we run from the future, it's always going to catch up with us.

 

[emraphoto]

the future has been rolling in like a locomotive but you can still shoot tin plates if you wish.

 

[sevo]

If the consumer can only view digital, then the producer can only shoot digital, or incur the added expense of digitizing. Simple economics says the later scenario cannot last long.

Well, the history of TV feature production rather goes against that - the poor guys that shot all-video series (whether digital or analogue) in the past are now cursing their fate as their productions are excluded from the repeat circuit and have lost almost all value, while everything shot on film is re-digitized to 16:9 or HD...