The beginning of the end for film?

Tools    





Thought this might be of interest to some of you.

A bizarre business agreement between two rival celluloid companies could herald the end of traditional film projection.

Technicolor and Deluxe - two of the biggest film processors - have been forced into an alliance because of reduced demand for film prints, as more movies and TV shows are released digitally.

The agreement sees Technicolor sub-contract their printing to rival Deluxe in the US. In turn, Technicolor will now handle print distribution for Deluxe.

Put simply, the market for film printing and distribution isn’t big enough for the both of them, so they’ve agreed to share it.

Deluxe President and chief exec Cyril Drabinsky said: "Today’s agreement with Technicolor is the result of significant changes in our industry enabled by new digital technologies causing the rapid transition from film to digital... This agreement will help maintain a high consistency of service for our customers through the remaining life of film."

Drabinsky estimates that around 20-25% of European cinemas have already converted to digital projection, while nearly half of the screens in North America have made the switch.
http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/blog/arti...-for-film.html



"Money won is twice as sweet as money earned."



Real tomato ketchup Eddie?
Very interesting, thanks for the post honeykid!

I can't help but feel this has a lot in common with the death of tape, used in recording music. I know there aren't even any makers of tape left. I believe it was Wilco that went on a huge shopping spree, buying up whatever tape they could get their hands on for recording.
__________________
"I know, honey. Look at the map. We go your way, that's about four inches. We go my way, it's an inch and a half. You wanna pay for the extra gas?"



"Why don't they teach logic in these schools?"
Tarantino will single-handedly keep it alive, I'm sure.

Anyway, this doesn't bum me out too badly. I don't, like some, find the artifacts of film charming, and I don't think they add to the experience. Every generation has this kind of nostalgia for whatever crude technology they grow up with. I'm sure my kids will think I'm old and crusty for not using HoloMail, or whatever.

I do think it'll be a long time until it's gone completely, though, because anyone who keeps using it a decade from now will be such a die-hard that they'll probably never turn. It'll peter out very, very slowly, like cassettes have, because a handful of people will swear by them.
__________________
"Ah, wood. Nature's metal."



You looked good, awful good.
Vinyl record albums are currently very popular and many people wrote them off over two decades ago, but those are something you can touch and experience at home. I still feel a warmth emanating from vinyl and I do for 35MM film photos. Sometimes watching a DVD or digital presentation of a film encrusted with CGI turns into a video game watching experience and it just makes the film feel "fake" to me. However, I have to admit that it's possible to get some very nice photos and movies from digital cameras, especially when shooting people and nature.

So overall, I don't think it's the end but because of everybody's current preoccupation with "I want it now!", technology will keep pushing it closer to the end.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden



I like collecting vinyl records from the past (my collection is small, though, thank goodness) -- owning rare items out of print is fun. I particularly like finding movie soundtracks on vinyl. I think vinyl has a cool, fun, different, serious, hardcore way of storing music tracks -- but they're very annoying and nothing like CD. I hate using a needle to start up a song. There's more precision with CDs and you don't have to worry about scratches as much (at least I've never had many problems scratching CDs.) Vinyl is great nostalgia, but CDs have well surpassed them.

I wish there was some way we could record things perfectly into our brains and play them at will -- music and movies. Afterall, we can all remember songs in our heads, but they're only memories and not actual recordings. If there was some way to get the power of memory and make it more powerful that we can somehow carry actual music (and movies) in our brains and play them wherever, I think it would be the best storage device ever. Close your eyes and watch Jaws as if it were a vivid dream. Switch over to someone else if you get bored.

But that's the stuff of science fiction, although I would be happy if technology could progress to being that powerful. Might kill the imagination, but hopefully that could still be separate.



I had heard a rumor that a few months ago, during the tsunami in JP that a whole bunch of film stock got wiped out with the disaster and studios we're scrambling to find film to even purchase. It seemed like that simple event could have single-handedly led to a more widespread adoption of digital production in the very near future.

I agree Yoda, I don't see that film adds that much to the experience of cinema to be that worried about a transition. I find nothing wrong with the digital cinema experience.



It's going to parallel vinyl. More bands nowadays publish vinyl than anyone would have predicted, so soon enough when more filmmakers that prefer film want to use it, it'll have no problem staying alive. Vinyl will never die because it's better, so the question is whether or not film or digital is better. It probably depends.



Well that article was ****ing depressing. I will always prefer film over digital. I mean, obviously I know digital is the new all and stuff, but I would like to think that in the next 10 elite filmmakers will still be using film. I look and feel of film is not something that can be created digitally, I don't care how advanced tech is. Anyways, I am hoping that more filmmakers take the plunge into IMAX technology. That's the only way I can see film living on longer than 20/30 years.



planet news's Avatar
Registered User
The intrinsic texture of the medium itself affects the emotional experience in a non-trivial way.

Just how this affect manifests itself in a particular audience member depends on her experience with other mediums.

One clear example comes to mind: those handful of Twilight Zone episodes shot on video instead of 35 mm are forever ruined for the viewer accustomed 35 mm but certainly not for the viewer accustomed to video (however few of these viewers actually exist).

Whether or not the phenomenon of being accustomed to the way a particular medium communicates with the eye is always analogous -- i.e. film is to viewer accustomed to film as digital is to viewer accustomed to digital -- is up for study and debate.
__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."



Sit Ubu Sit.... Good Dog
Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
Anyway, this doesn't bum me out too badly. I don't, like some, find the artifacts of film charming, and I don't think they add to the experience. Every generation has this kind of nostalgia for whatever crude technology they grow up with. I'm sure my kids will think I'm old and crusty for not using HoloMail, or whatever.
I agree with Yoda, I do not really hang onto the past, I am the type of person that likes to stay current with whatever technology is the most modern. I try to do this on a budget so it dosen't always work.
People that like to collect or buy new vinyl well that's cool, you can still buy record players probably more on the market now then in the 70's. If your collecting VHS then well has anyone even tried to buy a VCR, they are becoming really hard to come by and last time I check they were pretty pricey on eBay.



With the advent of the RED camera and full frame CCDs it seems to me that film might as well be a thing of the past. Its only a matter of time that these beasts of cameras will out-rival conventional film.



I normally don't hang on to the past that much, but I can't let go of VHS. It just has an amazing "cult" quality to it, its like the movie has a whole new distant dreary atmosphere.



Like it was said, film has a warmth to it unmatched by digital and film still beats digital in dynamic range and resolution despite anything you hear from those who make digital products. Sure, hair and scratches are a bad thing for film but noise and color reproduction are digital's downfall.



This disturbs me cos i think there is something lost in digital
atmosphere seems to be lacking, i cant put my finger on it, but there is something captured me on those older films, i like a good clear picture obviously, but its about shades and character and depth- realism?, i think , and capturing a mood.
All digital seems to look so bland and fake when compared.
am i right or am i just imaging it?
And ho w come digital is meant to be clearer when it has less information in it
say for tv
you got big balls with digital
when before you had loads of little balls making up a picture
i always thought more balls would means greater detail
how come it works that way?



What's good about digital editing is you have almost infinite choices.

What sucks about digital editing is that you have almost infinite choices.
__________________
Under-the-radar Movie Awesomeness.
http://earlsmoviepicks.blogspot.com/