Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,476   Posts: 1,542,653   Online: 790
      
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 89
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Horsham, PA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    751
    The thing with film (as opposed to digital) is that newer is not necessarily better. There are many people on this forum that would much rather have a 50+ year-old Leica than a 5 year old Canon SLR. I myself would never give up my OM-2N for any AF SLR. In addition, us film shooters are engorged by the glut of film-based accessories being put on the market by people who are switching to digital. "In fact, I think that might be a reason that the photo companies love digital... You buy one film body and 4-5 lenses, you are set for the next 10-15 years. With Digital, you have to buy a new body every 2 years at the most to keep up with current technology. Besides, most "film people" have chosen their preferred system, and will stick with it until "the end"

  2. #12
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by ilovekodachrome View Post
    I'm a strong supporter of Kodachrome 64. If you check B&H, I predict you will find that all 35mm cameras are in the process of being discontinued, at least all the ones that aren't junk. How long can 35mm stay viable with only used cameras available?
    The motion picture industry's use of 35mm or lack thereof will determine this, not camera availability...for Kodak and Fuji, at least. In a recent post, PE stated he had heard that 60 to 90 percent of film sales is motion film. Since I am now stating this to you, it is hearsay, of course, but anyone who is familiar with the practices of the MP industry will tell you that the volumes shot on motion film wipe out the volumes shot on still film. It takes a few seconds of motion film at 24 fps to equal the amount of film shot on one roll of 35mm still film, and a much smaller percentage of what is filmed will ever be included in the final product, so they shoot more waste as well. Add to that the fact that 35mm film is still the professional industry standard for MP, and at no point was it ever the professional standard for still pix, unless you are talking about news shooting in the past 40-50 years. Personally, I am surprised PE heard a number as low as 60 percent! I figured at least 75, and probably more.
    Last edited by 2F/2F; 01-02-2009 at 05:36 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    2F/2F

    "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)

  3. #13
    Michel Hardy-Vallée's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Montréal (QC)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,351
    Images
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by 2F/2F View Post
    It takes a few seconds of motion film at 24 fps to equal the amount of film shot on one roll of 35mm still film, and a much smaller percentage of what is filmed will ever be included in the final product, so they shoot more waste as well.
    At 24fps, it would be theoretically exactly 1.5s (1.5 x 24 = 36). But there are also 24exp rolls, which would be spent in exactly 1s.

    Now I wonder about the resources of the English language: does 1.5 count as "a few" (i.e. more than 1) or not (it's less than 2, hence less than grammatical plural).

    Just doing that to bug you, and Happy New Year!
    Using film since before it was hip.


    "One of the most singular characters of the hyposulphites, is the property their solutions possess of dissolving muriate of silver and retaining it in considerable quantity in permanent solution" — Sir John Frederick William Herschel, "On the Hyposulphurous Acid and its Compounds." The Edinburgh Philosophical Journal, Vol. 1 (8 Jan. 1819): 8-29. p. 11

    My APUG Portfolio

  4. #14
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,003
    Images
    65
    I'll confirm that is what I heard from various sources. I would guess that no one wants to give out the real figure and that the "real" figures varies seasonally or is based on Hollywood usage. There is also considerable use by Bollywood.

    PE

  5. #15
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Michel Hardy-Vallée View Post
    At 24fps, it would be theoretically exactly 1.5s (1.5 x 24 = 36). But there are also 24exp rolls, which would be spent in exactly 1s.

    Now I wonder about the resources of the English language: does 1.5 count as "a few" (i.e. more than 1) or not (it's less than 2, hence less than grammatical plural).

    Just doing that to bug you, and Happy New Year!
    Hi, Michael,

    Happy new year to you as well!

    That is correct for horizontal-running MP cameras that use the same size frame as a 35mm still camera. Standard vertical-running ones use a smaller frame in which the area between one strip of sprocket holes and the other is the width of the frame, not the height.

    If it makes you feel better, I had the "what is a few?" question of myself before posting! I didn't bother to calculate the exact length of film, so estimated by saying "a few". Gotta love general language!!
    Last edited by 2F/2F; 01-02-2009 at 06:02 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    2F/2F

    "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)

  6. #16
    wogster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bruce Peninsula, ON, Canada
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,266
    Quote Originally Posted by ilovekodachrome View Post
    I'm a strong supporter of Kodachrome 64. If you check B&H, I predict you will find that all 35mm cameras are in the process of being discontinued, at least all the ones that aren't junk. How long can 35mm stay viable with only used cameras available?
    For about $100, I can by a slightly used and in good condition, Konica A, with a standard lens. This is a camera that hasn't been produced since 1968. So, if you can still buy a 40 year old camera, then there is no reason that 40 years from now, you will not be able to still buy a used 35mm camera, heck I wouldn't be surprised if you couldn't then still buy that Konica A, those cameras were built like tanks in miniature.

    Now, if there are new film markets, there is no reason there will not be new cameras to take advantage of that market.
    Paul Schmidt
    See my Blog at http://clickandspin.blogspot.com

    The greatest advance in photography in the last 100 years is not digital, it's odourless stop bath....

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    local
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,265
    Blog Entries
    4
    Images
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by nickrapak View Post
    With Digital, you have to buy a new body every 2 years at the most to keep up with current technology.
    where do people come up with this?
    i read this all the time but have a hard time believing it is true.
    i got a numeric back in 2001 or so ... and did not upgrade it
    until last year ...
    silver magnets, trickle tanks sold
    artwork often times sold for charity
    PM me for details

  8. #18
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    where do people come up with this?
    i read this all the time but have a hard time believing it is true.
    i got a numeric back in 2001 or so ... and did not upgrade it
    until last year ...
    People are consumer zombie idiots, remember!?
    2F/2F

    "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)

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    Indeed.

    Still, to keep up with current technology, you will have to buy new every two years, at the very least.

    The "consumer zombie idiots" bit is in the widespread believe that you have to keep up with current technology.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by 2F/2F View Post
    The motion picture industry's use of 35mm or lack thereof will determine this, not camera availability
    This is an interesting angle. But for the possibility of the format being saved by motion picture film (about which I know not enough even to speculate) I would have agreed with the original poster that there is little time left for 35mm film. (Although based on nothing but speculation, the 12 years jokingly posted by the first response sounds about right.) From what I've read and observed it is now so cheap digitally to replicate or exceed 35mm film that there will soon be only a very small market for 35mm (still) film. Most high-end users (excepting many on this site, I suppose) will convert to DSLRs; almost all have already, I'd guess. And eventually, those ubiquitous disposable 35mm cameras will disappear too; it is surprising they haven't already, inasmuch as each one costs about $10 and for $80 you can have a decent compact digital camera that you can keep forever--I guess people still show up at tourist traps without a camera in hand and desperate to take even a lousy picture. Eventually, I would imagine that 35mm would be impossible to get, just as I suppose it is now impossible to get 110 cartridge film. (Isn't it?)

    I'll use myself, just as an example. Most of my photography is point-and-shoot, on Halloween and birthday parties, etc. I shoot 4x5 as a hobbyist, but mostly it's getting the kid in the costume or before she blows out the candles. And after more than seven years of green skin and shutter lag with a never-ending line of cheap compact digital cameras, it occurred to me that good 35mm film in my ten-year-old Nikon point-and-shoot gives me better results. But I'm already a dinosaur, and too cheap to spend $400 on a compact camera that would equal the decade-old Nikon film camera (even though the $400 digital camera would save me money in the long run because I wouldn't have to develop the film). But when I can match the quality of the point-and-shoot film camera with a $100 point-and-shoot digital, I'll put the film camera away again, for good. If others are like me, and when the pros and advanced amateurs have no use for 35mm film anymore, that will be the end of it, I think (movies aside).

Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin