Are we near the end of slide film?

[Shadow Blaster]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I read in our paper this am that movies will be phasing out slide film in about a year and will switch to digital. This was in an article on the future of drive-in movies. If that occurs, will the collateral damage extend to eliminating slide film for 35mm camera users? I shoot slide film exclusively with my M7 and have been resisting the move to digital.

 

Is there any realistic hope for continued availability of 35mm slide film?

 

John S.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[stunsworth]

As far as I'm aware most (all?) movies shot on film use negative film rather than reversal.

[CalArts 99]

In the motion picture industry "slide" film is positive film that is only used for making theatre prints. As Stuntsworth mentioned, films originate on negative film. Theatre prints have long been 'disappearing' since theatres have been switching over to digital projection quite some time ago. The studios have been subsidizing the theatres to go to digital projection since the cost of distributing prints is enormous compared to distribution in digital form and using digital projections.

 

The big issue here isn't just still film users, but theatres and projectionists. Small art theatres will go out of business (due to the expense of going digital projection) and projectionists will lose their livelihood. To project a digital copy all it takes is to push a button (a digital projection can be operated from an iPad app.)

 

Also students and hobbyists who still like to make 16mm films can no longer have the option of projecting their film on a (currently cheap to buy) 16mm projector. Without positive film one is 'forced' to do a telecine (expensive) in order to view a film produced on negative film.

 

As I mentioned, this is not news and has been going on for a while now. Positive motion picture film isn't being made anymore and that's why Kodak exited from positive film in any form, still or moving. Fuji has exited entirely from the motion film industry (announced this spring) and so we'll have to see how long they'll keep producing positive film for still camera use.

[adan]

"Movies" (as in the Hollywood/Bollywood industry) don't use "slide film" - they shoot with negative film, and then make duplicates onto more negative film, flipping the tones and colors to positive final products (thus the terms "work print," "release print," etc.)

 

Amateur home movies did indeed use reversal films, like Kodachrome or Anscochrome (where there was not the requirement to efficiently produce thousands of copies for theaters) - but that part of the market has been essentially non-existent for quite a while, pushed aside by home video cameras. (Kodak still offers one B&W reversal film in Super 8 and 16mm)

 

You can go here to see what films Kodak offers overall for motion picture production, which includes camera films, and also post-production films for editing, special effects printing, (oddly, also soundtrack recording!) and for producing final release prints: KODAK: Camera Films

 

Fuji just quit the motion picture film business, and here are the products they dropped - again mostly color neg films: Discontinued Films | Fujifilm Global

 

So as to your premise: Kodak has stayed in the motion picture business, but has ceased all color slide film production.

 

Fuji exited the motion picture business, but is still making some slide film (Velvia, Provia) and some non-motion color neg films (Pro 400H, and consumer X-tra films).

 

So what the movie industry does is mostly irrelevant to slide film.

 

The real risks to slide film were discussed when Fuji announced dropping Provia 400X: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/film-forum/293494-neopan-400-provia-400x-rip.html

[Shadow Blaster]

To all who replied - Thanks for educating me on this topic. John S.

[StS]

(...) Small art theatres will go out of business (due to the expense of going digital projection) (...)

 

The small neigbourhood theatres, I visit regularly, have already converted to digital or at least have a digital option now. It is a bit strange to receive 3D glasses with the tickets in one of these old granny-cinemas...

 

Maybe the prices for projectors went down to an affordable level. Someone in my sports club produces films for TV. He told me, that the first digital mixing studio, which was bought over here by a public TV broadcaster did cost several millions of EUR, but he would get the same equipment for 60 kEUR now.

 

Stefan

[CalArts 99]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The small neigbourhood theatres, I visit regularly, have already converted to digital or at least have a digital option now. It is a bit strange to receive 3D glasses with the tickets in one of these old granny-cinemas...

 

Maybe the prices for projectors went down to an affordable level. Someone in my sports club produces films for TV. He told me, that the first digital mixing studio, which was bought over here by a public TV broadcaster did cost several millions of EUR, but he would get the same equipment for 60 kEUR now.

 

Those original high capital costs are now decreasing, I agree. And the huge megaplex cinemas have always been subsidized by the studios and the distributors to convert to DCP since it's in their best interest.

 

Here's a good article on what's happening here in Los Angeles (home of the film industry): Movie Studios Are Forcing Hollywood to Abandon 35mm Film. But the Consequences of Going Digital Are Vast, and Troubling - Page 1 - Film+TV - Los Angeles - LA Weekly

 

It's not so much smaller commercial theatres but the smaller specialty art house theatres (and theatres in non-urban areas who have already lost income due to DVD and streaming internet.) Not everyone will be able afford to convert to DCP, or at least will probably reconsider whether they want to even stay in the theatre business.

 

And another issue is still being able to get prints of certain classic and independent films. Many of those prints are going to be stored into inventory and may not ever come back out again (obviously not everything will be digitized) and if the theatres no longer need projection equipment, then who will even show them?

 

That LA Weekly article also discusses the issues that institutions like the UCLA film archive are now facing (UCLA Film & Television Archive)

 

Anyway, change happens all the time in respect to increasing profitability for the major studios, but one wonders what will happen when classic/independent originals captured on film will end up staying stored away in the salt mines to never to appear again.

[Guest malland]

CalArts 99, interesting LA Weekly article. There are indeed a lot of issues, including those of small theaters; but the social forces (people watching DVDs at home) that have made it so difficult for small movie houses to survive aren't going away; film preservation is an issue but digital preservations issues are blown a bit out of proportion, although there is an issue of financing this.

 

Some other issues are emotionalized: the fate projectionist jobs is not going to wag the dog of the technology or of economics; quotes like the following are not exactly objective: Film cameras require reloading every 10 minutes. They teach discipline, and Cinephiles talk about there being an organic quality to 35mm, as if it were a living creature. "There's literally an inner life," Wright says. "Every single frame is different on every single print. You feel that when you're watching it. I'd be alarmed to see that go away."

 

My own curiosity is about two matters. One is is at the stage of filming: as the article states, the newest digital cameras (Arri and Red, I suppose) are smaller, quicker to set up, easier for long shots and a hand-held style; but today, how different is the look of cinematography on film compared to digital with the newest cameras?.

 

Are we talking about the difference in still photography of shooting color with an M9 and color slide film? (I insist on the M9 for it's color rendition vs Canon or Nikon or the M240). When I see a film with beautiful color, I stay until the end to see whether it was shot on film: the latest one I've seen is Renoir directed by Gilles Bourdos with cinematography Mark Ping Bing Lee, shot on 35 mm Kodak Vision3 500T 5219 film. The Vision3 films by Kodak are amazing, and I suppose this technology has also been used on some of the Kodak 35mm still camera film: it's ironic that some of the best Kodak film has come out in the twilight of film use.

 

The other question is: is there any difference in the look of a film projected by DCP versus a positive film print? My assumption is there is not.

 

Incidentally, one thing the article does not mention is that all movies that are shot on film are then digitalized on high speed scanners for digital post processing for color balance, special effects and whatever else needs to be done — and then, for projection on film must be burned back onto positive print film.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

[CalArts 99]

 

The Vision3 films by Kodak are amazing, and I suppose this technology has also been used on some of the Kodak 35mm still camera film

 

The other question is: is there any difference in the look of a film projected by DCP versus a positive film print? My assumption is there is not.

 

Incidentally, one thing the article does not mention is that all movies that are shot on film are then digitalized on high speed scanners for digital post processing for color balance, special effects and whatever else needs to be done — and then, for projection on film must be burned back onto positive print film.

 

 

The Vision 3 films (I use the S16mm version) is pretty much Portra emulsion. The 500T is Portra 400 (although tungsten balanced of course.)

 

I can't tell the difference between a DCP projection and a projected film positive. I kind of doubt anybody could except maybe well-trained experts.

 

And yes, non-linear editing has been going on for a long time now. With the advent of Avid and FCP, the Steenbeck and flatbed editing went away quite some time ago.

 

Interestingly, the latest new product that Kodak had announced (just a year or two ago) was a new film stock for archiving (what they coin as 'asset protection.') (KODAK: Asset Protection Films ) The industry still seems to like to archive on film. That may have to do with storage costs, too. Film is easier and cheaper to store in the salt mines (like tossing it in a closet and forgetting about it )

 

Are you familiar with this documentary film? Side By Side It's worth seeing if you get a chance (it will be broadcast on Public Television in the US in a few days from now.)

[Guest malland]

Thanks. Interesting, about the Kodak Asset Protection Films. A friend here mentioned "Side by Side." I'll have to check whether he has it, as I'd like to see it.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

[CalArts 99]

I'll have to check whether he has it, as I'd like to see it.

 

It's been made available from Tribeca (the media company started by Robert De Niro) on iTunes, Amazon, and Vudu. The direct links are in the middle of this webpage: Future of Film: Keanu Reeves and Chris Kenneally Discuss "Side By Side" at MoMA | Tribeca

[Guest malland]

Thanks, CalAarts99 for alerting me to Side by Side, which I just came back from seeing at a friend's house. Wow, fantastic stuff.

 

Lot of interesting stuff but two things interested me in particular. One is the discussion of artistic possibilities with small video ciné cameras that Lars van Trier talked about in connection with Dogma 95. Also, the maximum run of 10 minutes for a film shot extended to 40 minutes by digital, which has tremendous possibilities — not to speak of the quick setup as exemplified by 28 Minutes Later.

 

After the seeing the film I looked at websites on the Arri Alexa and the Red Epic cameras. The latter weighs 4 pounds and has a 5K resolution, a dynamic range of 13.5 stops and a base ISO of 800. Amazing stuff, particularly as these cameras use normal 35mm ciné lenses.

 

The other thing that interested me was the discussion of how night shots can be more realistic looking with the high ISO of digital ciné cameras than with film. Someone spoke how beautiful the colors coming off city lights can be, which is something that I've been talking about in this thread, which discusses a shooting and processing technique that, for me, completely changes the conventional wisdom about the M9 being bad at high ISO — with this technique I find the M9 to be a great camera for high ISO night shooting given, in particular, the M9 color rendition.

 

Incidentally, in 2001 I saw a great film by Eric Rohmer (The Lady and the Duke), which wasn't much in terms of resolution compared to film at the time; but that was good artistically, shot against a background of meticulously constructed perspective drawings of Paris at the time of the Revolution that are digitally combined with the shots of the actors. Worked very well.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

[CalArts 99]

Thanks, CalAarts99 for alerting me to Side by Side, which I just came back from seeing at a friend's house. Wow, fantastic stuff.

 

I'm glad you got to see it, it's certainly an interesting topic.

 

There's definitely a lot happening in cinema these days in respect to production possibilities. It's all good, imho. I think that one has to keep an open mind and realize that all materials should be considered for their own specific characteristics and opportunities. Here is one of Cinefii's "bit size dailies" that kind of says it all: John de Borman, what factors do you consider when deciding on celluloid or digital for a project? - YouTube

 

If you're unfamiliar with Cinefii, here's their website which has a lot of informative articles about the current state of cinema: Cinefii

 

I received a master's degree from one of the "big three" film schools here (CalArts, USC, and UCLA) although I was in the art school and in photography/media and not the film school. But when I was there it was film and video, with the video more as an 'experimental art form.'

 

Today the film school is fully invested in the latest technologies (Production Facilities | School of Film/Video) But unlike some other institutions (where costs become a big consideration) film is still part of the curriculum: "CalArts continues to support traditional filmmaking, with Moviola and Steenbeck editing suites for 16mm film and a four-plate Steenbeck for 35mm. Other key features include a dedicated room for hand-developing film; and an optical printer for rephotography of images onto 16mm and 35mm film or building composites from multiple film elements."

 

I think that both mediums have their own place and film will always remain an option even as digital progresses. It's not a 'one or nothing' sort of thing. And the two can be mixed nicely as John Borman points out in the video link I posted.

[Guest malland]

CalArts 99, great stuff! Thanks.

 

Borman's case for the availability of both film and digital for cinematography is compelling. In terms of film school, I would assume that there would be a strong case for having the facilities for and teaching film, while at the same time having the convenience of students also making quicker, lower-cost digital projects. But this assumption is not based on any knowledge on my part; it's simply reasoning by analogy: if I were setting out to learn photography today, I would want to start with a basic B&W darkroom course because, in my view, nothing else teaches you so much about gradation and the gamut of possibilities for what a good print can looks like. Sure, you can sit at a monitor and push sliders and see the changes and then print out the results; but I feel that learning it in the darkroom, gives a better and deeper foundation in what is a good print that stays in your mind forever. Would you say learning cinematography on film has a similar result?

 

—Mitch/Paris

Tristes Tropiques [WIP]