Some Good News for Kodak's Film Business

[jimmy_james8]

<p>The day they stop <em>shooting</em> movies on film is the day I stop going to the theater.<br>

Most of the films coming out of Hollywood today are, in any event, tasteless crap. <br>

In my opinion, Kodak should find a way to get into the movie business itself; there is definitely more money to be made there than in printers.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Shooting is all that will be left of the movie film marker in 2016. The forecast is for 100% worldwide distribution by then.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Worldwide? I can understand that in the US as most cinemas are owned by large companies who can afford the equipment but in Europe and especially here in the UK, cinemas are owned by smaller companies or even privately. The costs involved in changing to digital projection are huge and would not be affordable for smaller cinema owners whose traditional projectors still work perfectly - more so if it is likely that the equipment will be obsolete in a few years and will need updating.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Steve, from the CEO of the Cinema Exhibitors’ Association:<br>

<br>

"near-total digital conversion of the UK cinema industry by Q1, 2013"<br>

<br>

Norway is already fully digital and Belgium and Luxembourg are close.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>Jeff, thanks.</p>

<p>One of the interesting things about these discussions is that people often counter that the "total conversion" is only happening in the US, and that it's not going on in Europe, or Asia, or "developing nations." The US is actually lagging. In countries with high piracy problems, distributors are kicking in to help accelerate the process, because it's in their best interests. I read that cinema piracy in India was up to $2 billion a year. At that rate, two years and you've paid for 100,000 new digital projectors. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The costs involved in changing to digital projection are huge</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Steve, the costs of not changing are huger. A full length 35mm print costs about $3,500. If you change your movie once a month, that's $42,000 a year. </p>

[donnie_strickland]

<p>As I said earlier, all the small, privately-owned theaters in my part of Alabama have already converted, concurrent with the big chain cinemas. Movie projection isn't going to save film; that point was passed long ago.</p>

[david_m]

<p>I'm surprised to learn that any movie is shot on film any more. I thought it all went digital years ago. I cannot imagine how they do the modern special effects using film. I think they must somehow merge the film images with digital images.</p>

[jim_gibbons]

<p>Digital projection doesn't mean the death of film capturing.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>David, the film is "digitized", run through a machine called a "scanner". The opposite machine exists, the "film recorder", to make film that can be distributed after the effects are in, but the market for those has pretty much died, and most of the companies that made them died too.</p>

<p>Jim, of course digital projection means the death of film capture. Distribution is literally 100 times a larger market than capture. It takes 20x the length of a movie in film to shoot it, and 2000x the length of the movie to distribute it. So, losing distribution means the loss of 99% of the market, and you can't keep a modern, high tech film operation running on 1% of the business. We are looking at the global, total extinction of color film production around 2020.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>You know? Kodak would have killed if they kept the Scanners alive with Digital backs..... They still could.</p>

[wblynch]

<p>Larry that's a great point.</p>

<p>I remember there was a still-born project a number of years ago that tried to make a digital sensor that fit into a 35mm film camera.</p>

<p>The pictures I saw showed a canister sized component with a sliding sensor that would be adjusted to the camera's film gate.</p>

<p>They gave up when the flood of cheap digicams hit the shelves but it could be resurrected and Kodak could put their brand on it. With today's batteries and USB ports they could fit the whole works into the canister. (maybe even incorporate bluetooth for file transfers).</p>

<p>I just wish Kodak would be thinking of realistic ways to stay alive instead of rolling over.</p>

<p>But I am sure the execs make more money if they shut the whole thing down.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I remember there was a still-born project a number of years ago that tried to make a digital sensor that fit into a 35mm film camera.<br>

The pictures I saw showed a canister sized component with a sliding sensor that would be adjusted to the camera's film gate.<br>

They gave up when the flood of cheap digicams hit the shelves but it could be resurrected and Kodak could put their brand on it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There was a company called Silicon Film that started on that path. If you google them, you will find some sites that say they were a scam. They did not disappear because of cheap digicams and there is no way Kodak could do anything with it at this point. The "idea" has zero credibility.</p>

<p>There was a more recent announcement for something called the RE-35 that was essentially an April Fools' Day joke.</p>

[wblynch]

<p>Perhaps, but I see it as a viable concept.</p>

 

[Spearhead]

<p>What technical evidence do you have that it is viable? </p>

[steve m smith]

<p>It is viable but a new back would probably be needed for the camera as I don't think it would be possible to make it thin enough to fit in place of the pressure plate.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>It is viable</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

How? Silicon Film spent millions of dollars and ended up looking like a scam.</p>

[wblynch]

<p>If they can get a camera in an iphone, a 35mm "digital film" insert is viable.</p>

<p>Anything is possible if you put your mind to it.</p>

 

[Spearhead]

<p>OK, so there's no plausible technical validation of the idea. That's clear now.</p>

[wblynch]

<p>Some people are determined to be small minded and trapped inside their own lack of imagination.</p>

<p>They were not the ones that took us to the moon.</p>

 

[Spearhead]

<p>The people who took us to the moon had a lot of scientific training and knew how to do what they were trying to do. The Silicon Film idea is one whose time has come and gone. It didn't work then and it won't work now, especially on the business side.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Is this line of conversation helping any of us? BTW I shot film today.</p>

[wblynch]

<p>Just saying there are lots of things Kodak can do to improve its position in the photographic market.</p>

<p>I think it is helpful. This isn't APUG. People are free-er to express ideas here.</p>

<p>Problems are not insolvable. Technology, expertise, capabilities and feasibility increases over time. Something that wasn't practical 10 years ago just may well be today.</p>

<p>Done.</p>

 

[25asa]

<p>I don't think digital projection in theaters is quite there yet. Most theaters are 2K which has the obvious problem called the "screen door effect", where you can see the actual pixels on screen instead of one smooth image. 4K helps this, but most theaters aren't 4K. Plus I saw the new Batman movie in both IMAX and in a digital 2K theater. The IMAX image was spectacular as expected. The digital image was half as bright and I could see the pixels. And this is what theaters are changing too. I'd rather see film until digital theaters can upgrade their equipment to better imaging.</p>