The last Kodak movie-film factory is at death's door

In article ,
RichA wrote:

BBC:

30 July 2014 Last updated at 06:22 ET
Hollywood directors rally to save film factory

what for?

Movie directors including Quentin Tarantino and JJ Abrams are leading an
attempt to save the last Kodak factory that manufactures physical film stock.

The digital revolution has led sales of movie film to drop by 96% since 2006.

that should be a clue.

Tarantino, Abrams and fellow directors Christopher Nolan and Judd Apatow have
persuaded Hollywood studios to commit to placing long-term orders, according
to the Wall Street Journal.

Kodak told the paper a deal should save the factory in Rochester, New York.

The studios have agreed preliminary orders with Kodak and are now
"negotiating formal commitments", the Wall Street Journal reported.

While many film-makers have switched to digital equipment, some retain an
affection for physical film.
'Undeniably beautiful'

emulate it digitally.

Abrams, who is currently shooting Star Wars Episode VII on film, told the
paper that the format "sets the standard for quality".

"There's something about film that is undeniably beautiful, undeniably
organic and natural and real," he said.

"Film sets the standard and once it's no longer available, the ability to
shoot the benchmark goes away."

nonsense.

film sets a mediocre standard that nobody wants anymore because digital
surpassed it long ago.

that's *why* film sales dropped 96% in the past decade.

Studios are expected to agree to order a set quantity of film per year for
the next several years.

until it's no longer made.

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

BBC:

30 July 2014 Last updated at 06:22 ET

Hollywood directors rally to save film factory


what for?

because some still want the option to use film.

what for? digital is better and cheaper and can emulate any film they
want.

Movie directors including Quentin Tarantino and JJ Abrams are leading an
attempt to save the last Kodak factory that manufactures physical film
stock.
The digital revolution has led sales of movie film to drop by 96% since
2006.

that should be a clue.

Only one clue of a range. Putting camera's in phones is probebly the biggest
change, and gettign everyone to feel the need they must have a device to do
anything from saving their lives to making them better people.

cameras in phones did not cause a 96% drop in *movie* film.



The studios have agreed preliminary orders with Kodak and are now
"negotiating formal commitments", the Wall Street Journal reported.

While many film-makers have switched to digital equipment, some retain an
affection for physical film.
'Undeniably beautiful'

emulate it digitally.

Not quite the same

*exactly* the same.

though it's like sitting in a flight similator and
claiming you are flying.

the faa thinks so, and counts simulator time as part of flight
training. not for everything, but certainly part of it.

On 01/08/2014 19:12, nospam wrote:
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:


what for?

because some still want the option to use film.

what for? digital is better and cheaper and can emulate any film they
want.

You can't "emulate film". You can maybe "emulate" a certain look, but
you will never be able to emulate the workflow. Shooting on film is
about much more than just the picture quality.

(...)
cameras in phones did not cause a 96% drop in *movie* film.

No, they didn't, digital projectors in cinemas did, and they were pushed
by Hollywood as a cost saving measure in distribution.

The studios have agreed preliminary orders with Kodak and are now
"negotiating formal commitments", the Wall Street Journal reported.

While many film-makers have switched to digital equipment, some retain an
affection for physical film.
'Undeniably beautiful'

emulate it digitally.

Not quite the same

*exactly* the same.

How many theatrically released feature films have you worked on?

In article , Joe Kotroczo
wrote:

what for?

because some still want the option to use film.

what for? digital is better and cheaper and can emulate any film they
want.

You can't "emulate film".

nonsense. of course you can.

You can maybe "emulate" a certain look, but
you will never be able to emulate the workflow.

who wants the bother of the film workflow?

who wants to wait hours for results, inhale toxic chemical fumes and
have to work in a dark climate controlled room (and yes i know about
tanks)?

Shooting on film is
about much more than just the picture quality.

the original claim was that the 'film look' was the reason, which can
be easily emulated.

people watching the movie don't care about the workflow.

cameras in phones did not cause a 96% drop in *movie* film.

No, they didn't, digital projectors in cinemas did, and they were pushed
by Hollywood as a cost saving measure in distribution.

that's one reason of many.

digital has pretty much replaced film, except for a few holdouts.

there's always one in every bunch. some still think vinyl sounds better
than cds.

The studios have agreed preliminary orders with Kodak and are now
"negotiating formal commitments", the Wall Street Journal reported.

While many film-makers have switched to digital equipment, some retain an
affection for physical film.
'Undeniably beautiful'

emulate it digitally.

Not quite the same

*exactly* the same.

How many theatrically released feature films have you worked on?

doesn't matter. it's a matter of physics.

digital can emulate anything film can do, and that's only when one
wants to forgo the higher quality that digital is capable of. since
it's better, it's easy to step down to film quality.

but as i said, there's always a few idiots who try to push this 'film
look' nonsense. if that's the look you want, simply dial it in on the
computer. done.

On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 21:45:55 -0400, Mark F
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 19:02:54 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Joe Kotroczo
wrote:

what for?

because some still want the option to use film.

what for? digital is better and cheaper and can emulate any film they
want.

You can't "emulate film".

nonsense. of course you can.
How do you emulate random grain location, different in every frame?

Pseudo-random number generator. At q25+ frames/second the lack of true
randomness won't be apparent.

It is likely that at some point digital have information for a low
enough cost to deal with the randomness of the grains, but you have to
have more pixels than is indicated by the resolution. (I don't
know if this is a small factor like say 4, or a large factor like say
4000.)

Dynamic range is another issue, but I don't know what the actual
comparison is now.


You can maybe "emulate" a certain look, but
you will never be able to emulate the workflow.

who wants the bother of the film workflow?

who wants to wait hours for results, inhale toxic chemical fumes and
have to work in a dark climate controlled room (and yes i know about
tanks)?

Shooting on film is
about much more than just the picture quality.

the original claim was that the 'film look' was the reason, which can
be easily emulated.

people watching the movie don't care about the workflow.

cameras in phones did not cause a 96% drop in *movie* film.

No, they didn't, digital projectors in cinemas did, and they were pushed
by Hollywood as a cost saving measure in distribution.

that's one reason of many.

digital has pretty much replaced film, except for a few holdouts.

there's always one in every bunch. some still think vinyl sounds better
than cds.

The studios have agreed preliminary orders with Kodak and are now
"negotiating formal commitments", the Wall Street Journal reported.

While many film-makers have switched to digital equipment, some retain an
affection for physical film.
'Undeniably beautiful'

emulate it digitally.

Not quite the same

*exactly* the same.

How many theatrically released feature films have you worked on?

doesn't matter. it's a matter of physics.

digital can emulate anything film can do, and that's only when one
wants to forgo the higher quality that digital is capable of. since
it's better, it's easy to step down to film quality.

but as i said, there's always a few idiots who try to push this 'film
look' nonsense. if that's the look you want, simply dial it in on the
computer. done.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Mark F
wrote:

what for?

because some still want the option to use film.

what for? digital is better and cheaper and can emulate any film they
want.

You can't "emulate film".

nonsense. of course you can.

How do you emulate random grain location, different in every frame?

grain can be digitally modeled and added in, as can any other
characteristic.

It is likely that at some point digital have information for a low
enough cost to deal with the randomness of the grains, but you have to
have more pixels than is indicated by the resolution. (I don't
know if this is a small factor like say 4, or a large factor like say
4000.)

that point happened long ago. digital can resolve more than film can
and more accurately too.

Dynamic range is another issue, but I don't know what the actual
comparison is now.

digital has much more dynamic range than film.

On 02/08/2014 00:02, nospam wrote:
In article , Joe Kotroczo
wrote:

(...)

How many theatrically released feature films have you worked on?

doesn't matter. it's a matter of physics.

So you don't actually know what you're talking about.

In article , Joe Kotroczo
wrote:

How many theatrically released feature films have you worked on?

doesn't matter. it's a matter of physics.

So you don't actually know what you're talking about.

oh yes i do. you *clearly* do not.

digital can easily emulate any film made, or it can go well beyond
film's limitations for even better results. this is a fact, whether you
choose to believe it or not.

you can try to claim all sorts of nonsense and pretend to know what
you're talking about, but math and physics proves you wrong. it's that
simple.

technology advances, and film has been replaced with something *much*
better and much more capable. why reject it?

On 8/2/14 6:44 AM, in article , "Joe
Kotroczo" wrote:

On 02/08/2014 00:02, nospam wrote:
In article , Joe Kotroczo
wrote:

(...)

How many theatrically released feature films have you worked on?

doesn't matter. it's a matter of physics.

So you don't actually know what you're talking about.

So you finally figured that out?!?

In article , Mark F
wrote:

How do you emulate random grain location, different in every frame?

grain can be digitally modeled and added in, as can any other
characteristic.
The idea is not to model the grain, but to use the extra information
gained by having the grain (effectively sensor cells)
1. being located in different positions in each frame.
so that there is higher resolution when multiple frames are
looked at, which our vision system PROBABLY can do.
(Can definitely be done in computerized image processing,
but probably not a factor for movies.)
2. Randomly located within each frame, no Moire effects.

grain is not an advantage, but if someone wants grain or any other film
characteristic, it can be added back.

some people like mediocrity. what can you do.