I appreciated the novelty of Avatar 3D.
But, I won't be falling for That Olde Trick anytime soon.
Maybe when I have grandchildren, they might be entertained
by such nonsense. It's childish gimmickery, being as prizes are
no longer provided in cereal boxes as a motivational distraction.
Sanjay Sen - APUG Subscriber
Sanjay Sen, 36, a champion of human and animal rights, died June 3 in a motorcycle accident in Wayne, New Jersey.
July 23 1975 - June 3 2012
Isn't Bollywood one of the largest consumers of cine film?
Bollywood 3D! Ohmy..
It goes without saying that an industry as big as Hollywood has a say in where film goes. I have several clients and personal friends deep in the Hollywood scene, actors, produces, cinematographers, light men, etc.. ALL of them hate digital. I am told the 'bean-counters' make this decision and it usually comes down to speed [delivery of the image]. Film production adds only a small cost increase to the total bill of a film/movie. At the end of the day with all the added things digital output is the cost savings in minimal.
I dont know much about 3D, I think it's just a fad, but IMAX has to be on film. It is also true that ALL movies are archived on film stock.
I was talking to a friend about the use of the RED1 on his show.. his only reply about this was.. 'lame'. From an art perspective, no one is liking the digital look.
Another problem is, as a whole, what is left of the film industry there isn't an all-around support of each other. There is too much bickering, jealousy and disrespect.
In terms of actual cost of film and processing, an average 35mm film print costs a couple-few thousand dollars. By agreement between Technicolor and United Parcel Service, a movie costs about $60.00 to ship one way. ($120.00 round trip.) The cost of the film print is built in to the first run rental agreement. The theater pays for the prints as part of the price of getting the film. The cost of the film prints is already made up for when the movie hits the screen for the first time.
Originally Posted by Policar
Do you realize that most of the price of a movie ticket goes to back to the movie studios? If the average price of a ticket costs $10.00, the studio gets about $8.00 or $9.00. The theater gets $1.00 or $2.00. That's why popcorn costs so damn much. A movie theater is little more than a popcorn stand that just happens to show movies in order to entice people in.
Move theaters run on a per-capita profit model.
They tally up the number of tickets they sold that day.
Then they add up all the money they made selling popcorn. They total up the money they made at the box office then subtract the studio's take. (80% - 90% in favor of the studio.) That is their gross receipts for the day.
Next they divide the gross receipts by the number of tickets. That gives you the income per-capita. (AKA: The "Per-Cap")
Next, they tally up all their expenses for the day. They count cost of goods sold. They count payroll. They count rent and utilities. Then they divide that by the number of tickets sold. That gives cost per customer. (AKA: "C.P.C.")
If Per-Cap is greater than CPC, they made money that day. If not, they have to figure out whether they can stay in business any longer.
Theaters report their earnings as the margin of their Per-Cap against their CPC.
Many theaters are working against shoestring margins. A really great margin might be $2.00 or $3.00 per customer. A lot of theaters are working on $1.00 to $1.50 per customer margins.
A megaplex theater in an urban area which collects $250,000 in gross receipts on a busy Friday night might only put $30,000 to $50,000 in the bank at the end of the business day. That's pathetic!
The reason why film gets damaged is NOT because film is inherently prone to damage. It's because theaters hire teenagers to run the projectors. They are too preoccupied with school and their social lives to have a work ethic. They slap the film into the machines and they hit the "start" button. They walk away and they go downstairs to chat up the popcorn girls. It's a freakin' miracle that there is even a movie at all!
Digital projection is not better because it doesn't get damaged. Hard drives still crash. Computers still malfunction. Lenses and xenon lamps still break and go out of spec. Sound systems still stop working. Kids running the shows still forget to focus the projectors. Light engines inside the digital projectors still fail.
To say that film is inherently less robust than film or is lower quality is a big, fat lie perpetrated by the companies who make and sell digital projectors. It's just the same as the oil companies who say that buying more expensive premium gasoline is better for your car. In a very few cases, premium gas is better but, in the great majority of cases, the only difference is the price.
A conscientious operator can run a film print through a 35mm movie projector hundreds and hundreds of times with virtually ZERO damage. I have worked in movie theaters for almost 15 years. I have run thousands of shows on 35mm film and I have handled enough movie film to go around the world, probably a dozen times or more. I have seen how film gets damaged. I know from personal experience that, 90% of the time, it is because some idiot doesn't do his job right. (Just to keep things straight, I have been "that idiot" on several occasions.) The other 10% of the time it is because of a machine malfunction. But that 10% can happen with equal probability in a digital theater as it can happen in a film theater.
The real reason movie studios are pushing digital is not because digital is better. It's because they want to get their hands on that last 15% of the profits that the theaters are keeping.
It's nothing more than greed.
Are Fuji and Kodak capable of staying in business without the massive cine film income they used to have after digital takes over most theaters? Is photography film production sustainable for those big companies by it's own if we just keep buying film (I mean are we numerous enough around the world)? Could the production be downsized and film prices kept affordable for the average analog photographer? Would they have the will for this? If not, would some smaller company around the world would and could? I think Adox picked up some production tools from the late Agfa and seem to be doing ok. I'm looking forward to the time when the Chinese will be able to produce some quality color film, maybe then some bean counters will get the idea that there may be some money to make after all.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Read the disclaimer at the end of the note:
I've got it, with the current white house thinking , the loss of Cine production will give Kodak more time to make general photographic film for us and maybe revive some older discontinued emulsions like Panatomic-X and Kodachrome. Wow and I was worried.
If the Eastman Kodak Company was really American they would keep making the best film in the World because it is good for the economy, if film stops then what about all of the companies that are based on film. Film is the keystone that keeps the whole thing from falling apart. Without film who needs HC110, D76, Rodinal, or any stop, fix, or chemical, storage, dust brush, wetting agent, and a catalog of items we take for granted? Do we keep the darkroom just to print old negatives? They, the manufactures in a depressed economy, have us by the neck.
Does the phrase "All the market can bear" ring a bell?
These are some Friday thoughts and not an argument on film, live or die, just some thoughts that will get answered in time. At least Ron is giving us some information in a rather vacuumed atmosphere.
Everytime I find a film or paper that I like, they discontinue it. - Paul Strand - Aperture monograph on Strand
Well, this is just one in a long series of downward steps that have been being made for decades. Film is mostly dead, and I feel that it will die relatively soon. It is just a matter of time. Not enough new people are picking it up and really learning how to work with it the way past generations did; devoting themselves to learning to do what it takes to get better results than they can get with digital. If we are lucky, we'll have something close to what we have now for a while, but sadly, I think we are very far from lucky with this one. I can see a few niche companies continuing to make b/w film and paper, but that is about all I envision. The only thing that could save it on a large scale would be a massive upsurge in the amount of patience that people have, to backtrack a good degree on the lack of patience they instantly let loose as soon as they got digital in their hot little hands. It ain't gonna happen. People are just too lazy and impatient. I just hope that those niche companies make good film that I can afford.
"Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."
- Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)
Being involved in the cinematography forum I've been aware for a few years about the slow conversion to Digital Projection in theaters, but I didn't want to say anything. It's not just 3D but 2D as well. It boils down to the greedy corporate conglomerates -- which own the Hollywood Studios -- wanting to make even more money by cutting out the cost of using Film Prints. However, theaters will not be able to afford the cost of maintaining Digital Projectors in the long run, and I believe they'll bring back their 35mm Projectors or go out of business.
Cinematographers will ALWAYS shoot their movies on Film! Unlike most professional photographers, they know how deficient Digital Movie Cameras are. Although modern 3D movies are shot on Digital Cameras, that will NEVER be the case for 2D.
Originally Posted by Policar
There is also the possibility for the resurrection of 70mm movies. This would require a quality Digital Sound Track capable of being printed onto the Film. 70mm would blow away 4K Digital.
One thing that has helped Digital Projection is the completely deficient Continuous Contact Printer used for duplicating Movie Prints. I have a few ideas for improving the Contact Printer which I intend to propose to Bell & Howell when I have the time. This would improve both the image quality of 35mm Prints and the reliability of the Digital Sound Tracks on the Prints -- making 35mm more viable for theaters.
These threads are tiresome.
Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.
My friend who works for a large cinema company here says that they are unwilling to modify their cinemas with digital projection equipment due to higher per-play costs.
He says film prints are here to stay unless Kodak start handing out digital cinema projection ($100,000)