5 ms·

Kodak Movie Film, at Death's Door, Gets a Reprieve

44 points by jamesbritt 12y ago

jdnier 12y ago
Why is this article link grayed out and missing it's up arrow?
- DanBC 12y ago
  It's grey because you have already visted that URL. It is missing the up-arrow because you have already up-voted it.
  - jdnier 12y ago
    Except I didn't submit the article and I hadn't upvoted it or looked at it yet, which is why I was confused. Thanks for your answers.
- sp332 12y ago
  If you just tried to submit the article, HN detected an earlier post of that URL and just added your vote to it, instead of making a new post with the same URL.
jdnier 12y ago
"Kodak's motion-picture film sales have plummeted 96% since 2006, from 12.4 billion linear feet to an estimated 449 million this year. With the exit of competitor Fujifilm Corp. last year, Kodak is the only major company left producing motion-picture film." I didn't realize Fuji had already discontinued manufacturing motion-picture film. I keep thinking the film business will hit rock bottom and the trickle of remaining demand will be stable enough to maintain what little is left of the industry. Sigh.
greiskul 12y ago
"Digital files need to be regularly transferred, putting them at greater risk of being damaged." Wait, this doesn't make any sense to me, isn't much easier to make a backup of a digital file compared to an analog movie? The digital file can be replicated any number of times with no loss of fidelity, and can be transported on the internet. How is film a better preservation strategy?
- jdnier 12y ago
  Except when ten years have passed and everyone's forgotten about the movie and tending its backups. Corruption happens, then it's too late. If you have a film print in a vault, it can be ignored or forgotten for decades and there's still hope.
  - dublinben 12y ago
    Every large studio will have an archive department whose sole job is to protect the integrity of these films. They won't just 'forget' about a movie that's been placed into the archive system.
    - wcfields 12y ago
      Anyone have any ballpark numbers on how the finished products are saved? Quick estimation of RED 4K at a _minute_ is about 2.5TB [1]. The file-vaults of studios then will eventually rival the NSA's data collection warehouse! [1] http://www.hdslr-cinema.com/tools/filesize.php?w=4096&h=2304&d=8&fps=25.000&cust_%0D%0Afps=&s=3600 http://www.hdslr-cinema.com/tools/filesize.php?w=4096&h=2304...
      - jdnier 12y ago
        From a recent IEEE Spectrum article: "If you were to make a 2-hour motion picture with an extended color range in 4K and at 48 frames per second, the raw (uncompressed) movie file would occupy more than 15 terabytes. For comparison, the total amount of data in all of the e-mails sent in the United States in one year has been estimated to be 10.6 TB." http://spectrum.ieee.org/consumer-electronics/audiovideo/lasers-coming-to-a-theater-near-you http://spectrum.ieee.org/consumer-electronics/audiovideo/las...
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
        function_seven 12y ago
jewel 12y ago
> "There's a magic to the grain and the color quality that you get with film." Can be simulated by shooting at the same frame rate (24 fps) plus some post-processing? It probably wouldn't be simple to write an accurate simulation, and it could be quite GPU intensive to process, but I imagine it's possible to get results from a digital camera that are indistinguishable from those using film.
- devindotcom 12y ago
  They're distinguishable. They've been shooting at 24FPS digital for a long time now, and digital post processing has been standard for decades. It really is difficult to say what sets film apart, but it's generally agreed among cinematographers digital and analog that the filmic quality is pretty unique to the film itself, though of course it can be faked fairly well.
  - ricardobeat 12y ago
    It used to be latitude / dynamic range, but digital sensors have already matched and surpassed film on that. I'm sure what the previous commenter said can be done (simulating film to a point where a movie director wouldn't be able to tell). It's different from analog vs digital audio, video has always been time-sliced so it's perfectly possible to recreate the exact same light.
- devindotcom 12y ago
  just occurred to me I wrote an article a while back that touches on some of this stuff, if you're interested in the history around 24, film & tv, etc: http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/08/frame-wars/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/08/frame-wars/
- cclogg 12y ago
  I find it's still really noticeable in the skin tones and highlights. You can find lots of comparisons online; once you see film beside digital, the difference can be pretty huge. Some people in Hollywood still really care about it... one recent example: http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Publications/InCamera/Creating_an_Edgy_Anti_Comedy_Look_for_Tammy.htm http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Publications/InCamera/Creatin... “It’s like we’ve forgotten how great film looks when you see it in comparison,” Alsobrook remarks. “We looked at each other, and it was a done deal. There was no question we were going to shoot film. It has a rich, creamy look to it that you just can’t get any other way.” One instance where it's very obvious to me was 300 vs its sequel 300: Rise of an Empire. I tried to find 2 similar images: 300 http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/dvdreviews46/300_the_complete_experience_blu-ray/large/large_300_blu-ray3.jpg http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/dvdreviews46/300_the_complete... 300 sequel http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTQwMTk3MTU3OV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMDA5NDQyMTE@._V1__SX1857_SY901_.jpg http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTQwMTk3MTU3OV5BMl5Ban... So basically I think digital is getting there but it still has a little ways to go in matching the perceived quality.
ricardobeat 12y ago
It's astonishing that in 4-5 years we went from all movies made on film to 100% digital.
- icantthinkofone 12y ago
  It's not 100% digital. I don't recall what the exact number is but it also depends on what you mean by "movie". Many Hollywood movies and TV shows are still done on film but an indie guy with little to no money certainly won't do that nowadays.
  - ricardobeat 12y ago
    Film sales declined by 96%. If that Kodad factory closes, the last 4% are gone.
    - icantthinkofone 12y ago
      He's talking about the number of movies that are made, not sales of film. Among Hollywood movies and TV shows with a reasonable budget, I wouldn't be surprised if 20% or more use film (as a very wild guess).
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  We didn't. Digital movies have been around longer than you think (eg Collateral was shot on a Viper > 10 years ago), and film is stil the only viable choice if you are shooting 70mm or for Imax delivery. However I'm being pernickety because film is my industry (and because I'm middle of checking off a list of deliverables for a feature right now, which requires me to be extra-pedantic). It has been a rapid and near-total shift. To shoot on film nowadays you need to be working with a very large budget (where your unfashionable preference will not have a substantial impact on production costs).

44 points by jamesbritt 12y ago

jdnier 12y ago

Why is this article link grayed out and missing it's up arrow?

DanBC 12y ago
It's grey because you have already visted that URL. It is missing the up-arrow because you have already up-voted it.
- jdnier 12y ago
  Except I didn't submit the article and I hadn't upvoted it or looked at it yet, which is why I was confused. Thanks for your answers.
sp332 12y ago
If you just tried to submit the article, HN detected an earlier post of that URL and just added your vote to it, instead of making a new post with the same URL.

jdnier 12y ago

"Kodak's motion-picture film sales have plummeted 96% since 2006, from 12.4 billion linear feet to an estimated 449 million this year. With the exit of competitor Fujifilm Corp. last year, Kodak is the only major company left producing motion-picture film." I didn't realize Fuji had already discontinued manufacturing motion-picture film. I keep thinking the film business will hit rock bottom and the trickle of remaining demand will be stable enough to maintain what little is left of the industry. Sigh.

greiskul 12y ago

"Digital files need to be regularly transferred, putting them at greater risk of being damaged." Wait, this doesn't make any sense to me, isn't much easier to make a backup of a digital file compared to an analog movie? The digital file can be replicated any number of times with no loss of fidelity, and can be transported on the internet. How is film a better preservation strategy?

jdnier 12y ago
Except when ten years have passed and everyone's forgotten about the movie and tending its backups. Corruption happens, then it's too late. If you have a film print in a vault, it can be ignored or forgotten for decades and there's still hope.
- dublinben 12y ago
  Every large studio will have an archive department whose sole job is to protect the integrity of these films. They won't just 'forget' about a movie that's been placed into the archive system.
  - wcfields 12y ago
    Anyone have any ballpark numbers on how the finished products are saved? Quick estimation of RED 4K at a _minute_ is about 2.5TB [1]. The file-vaults of studios then will eventually rival the NSA's data collection warehouse! [1] http://www.hdslr-cinema.com/tools/filesize.php?w=4096&h=2304&d=8&fps=25.000&cust_%0D%0Afps=&s=3600 http://www.hdslr-cinema.com/tools/filesize.php?w=4096&h=2304...
    - jdnier 12y ago
      From a recent IEEE Spectrum article: "If you were to make a 2-hour motion picture with an extended color range in 4K and at 48 frames per second, the raw (uncompressed) movie file would occupy more than 15 terabytes. For comparison, the total amount of data in all of the e-mails sent in the United States in one year has been estimated to be 10.6 TB." http://spectrum.ieee.org/consumer-electronics/audiovideo/lasers-coming-to-a-theater-near-you http://spectrum.ieee.org/consumer-electronics/audiovideo/las...
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - function_seven 12y ago

jewel 12y ago

> "There's a magic to the grain and the color quality that you get with film." Can be simulated by shooting at the same frame rate (24 fps) plus some post-processing? It probably wouldn't be simple to write an accurate simulation, and it could be quite GPU intensive to process, but I imagine it's possible to get results from a digital camera that are indistinguishable from those using film.

devindotcom 12y ago
They're distinguishable. They've been shooting at 24FPS digital for a long time now, and digital post processing has been standard for decades. It really is difficult to say what sets film apart, but it's generally agreed among cinematographers digital and analog that the filmic quality is pretty unique to the film itself, though of course it can be faked fairly well.
- ricardobeat 12y ago
  It used to be latitude / dynamic range, but digital sensors have already matched and surpassed film on that. I'm sure what the previous commenter said can be done (simulating film to a point where a movie director wouldn't be able to tell). It's different from analog vs digital audio, video has always been time-sliced so it's perfectly possible to recreate the exact same light.
devindotcom 12y ago
just occurred to me I wrote an article a while back that touches on some of this stuff, if you're interested in the history around 24, film & tv, etc: http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/08/frame-wars/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/08/frame-wars/
cclogg 12y ago
I find it's still really noticeable in the skin tones and highlights. You can find lots of comparisons online; once you see film beside digital, the difference can be pretty huge. Some people in Hollywood still really care about it... one recent example: http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Publications/InCamera/Creating_an_Edgy_Anti_Comedy_Look_for_Tammy.htm http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Publications/InCamera/Creatin... “It’s like we’ve forgotten how great film looks when you see it in comparison,” Alsobrook remarks. “We looked at each other, and it was a done deal. There was no question we were going to shoot film. It has a rich, creamy look to it that you just can’t get any other way.” One instance where it's very obvious to me was 300 vs its sequel 300: Rise of an Empire. I tried to find 2 similar images: 300 http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/dvdreviews46/300_the_complete_experience_blu-ray/large/large_300_blu-ray3.jpg http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/dvdreviews46/300_the_complete... 300 sequel http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTQwMTk3MTU3OV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMDA5NDQyMTE@._V1__SX1857_SY901_.jpg http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTQwMTk3MTU3OV5BMl5Ban... So basically I think digital is getting there but it still has a little ways to go in matching the perceived quality.

ricardobeat 12y ago

It's astonishing that in 4-5 years we went from all movies made on film to 100% digital.

icantthinkofone 12y ago
It's not 100% digital. I don't recall what the exact number is but it also depends on what you mean by "movie". Many Hollywood movies and TV shows are still done on film but an indie guy with little to no money certainly won't do that nowadays.
- ricardobeat 12y ago
  Film sales declined by 96%. If that Kodad factory closes, the last 4% are gone.
  - icantthinkofone 12y ago
    He's talking about the number of movies that are made, not sales of film. Among Hollywood movies and TV shows with a reasonable budget, I wouldn't be surprised if 20% or more use film (as a very wild guess).
anigbrowl 12y ago
We didn't. Digital movies have been around longer than you think (eg Collateral was shot on a Viper > 10 years ago), and film is stil the only viable choice if you are shooting 70mm or for Imax delivery. However I'm being pernickety because film is my industry (and because I'm middle of checking off a list of deliverables for a feature right now, which requires me to be extra-pedantic). It has been a rapid and near-total shift. To shoot on film nowadays you need to be working with a very large budget (where your unfashionable preference will not have a substantial impact on production costs).