Vision 3 Stock coming soon from Kodak

http://kodak.com/US/en/motion/hub/v3/evolution.jhtml

I can't get the flash to come up. Can anyone else? From what Ive heard, don't expect anything "revolutionary" from these new stocks, but knowing the direction Kodak has been moving in, probably they will flatten slower stocks and make the grain even tighter on faster ones.

I'm so happy that Kodak continues to R&D their film. Unfortunately they get no credit for it. Digital has taken all of the headlines but Kodak has been working diligently and the level of quality on their stocks over the past 30 years has just gone through the roof, it is really astounding how much they are pushing film to a new level.
 
I'm just seeing a blank spot on the page where the flash movie should be.

Me too. Would like to see the visual on it.

They are polishing brass on the Titanic. Film is dead. :)

This obviously could turn into a flame war. But simply answer this: what percentage of films in the box office currently were acquired on film, and what percentage of the total projection screens out there are film print projections? I'll save you the trouble of looking and say that aside from every other reason, film is not dead... yet. It still has a long way to go, and quite frankly to think that Kodak is pushing their stocks even further is amazing. If you haven't studied how much film's technology had improved in the last 30 years, its astounding.
 
1. 30 Days of Night - 35 mm (Kodak Vision2 200T 5217)
2. TYLER PERRY'S WHY DID I GET MARRIED - 35mm
3. THE GAME PLAN - 35mm
4. MICHAEL CLAYTON - 35 mm (Kodak Vision2 200T 5217, Vision2 500T 5218)
5. GONE BABY GONE - 35 mm
6. WE OWN THE NIGHT - 35 mm
7. TIM BURTON'S NIGHTMARE 3-D(07) - 35mm
8. THE COMEBACKS - 35 mm / Video (HDTV) - Mix (unsure how much of each was shot. probably all football/fx shots done with genesis)
9. RENDITION - Super 35mm
10. THE HEARTBREAK KID - Super 35mm

This is the current top ten in box office, and those are all the acquisition formats. That is pretty indicative of the top 20, and it is pretty much the same every week. Every one of these films were projected using 35mm or anamorphic 35mm.

So again, maybe there is a different barometer to use for the "film is dead" issue but this is the one I'm using.
 
MThis obviously could turn into a flame war.

Why? What possible vested interest could you have in any particular acquisition format that would engender enough anger to induce a flame war?

Perhaps "film is DYING" is more accurate. And while it's true that, in a snapshot of current formats, film is the winner in acquisition for major studio films, it is certainly the case that the trend is toward digital acquisition and that the number of movies acquired on film is decreasing and will continue to decrease from now on until it's pretty much gone completely.

Do you see any reason why that trend will stop or reverse course or why it SHOULD stop or reverse course?
 
Why? What possible vested interest could you have in any particular acquisition format that would engender enough anger to induce a flame war?

I don't have a vested interest. I just shot a short using an HV20. I was 1st on a short just shot with an XH A1. The short I shot before that was on 16mm reversal. In case you haven't surfed the internet much, the film vs. video debate has raged for 30 years, with people declaring 3/4" to be the end of film. Here we are in 2007 and just about every film made is still being made and projected on film. I suppose I'm just tiring of the statement that because video exists, film must die. That is simply not necessarily true.

Perhaps "film is DYING" is more accurate.

Once again, to be dying, there must be a finite end and while it may be true for both film and video because holographic will be coming along, I don't see film non-coexisting with digital for quite a few years to come. And thats as far as my prognostication goes.

And while it's true that, in a snapshot of current formats, film is the winner in acquisition for major studio films, it is certainly the case that the trend is toward digital acquisition and that the number of movies acquired on film is decreasing and will continue to decrease from now on until it's pretty much gone completely.

Do you see any reason why that trend will stop or reverse course or why it SHOULD stop or reverse course?

Because on a film that costs 5 million or more, film stock is a drop in a bucket. Do a budget, check it out. Talk to people out there making movies for theatrical release right now. The cost of film vs. 4k really isn't so advantageous.

Until people stop wanting to see good looking talented known people in their movies (aka stars), films will still cost millions to make and then the choice comes down to aesthetics and practicality.

Comic-based fx films and the like are probably destined to grow 4k acquisition for good reason.

But the real reason why we will see many more DV, HDV, and HD movies is because movies with no budget and no names attached now have a tool besides super-8 of which they can now make a movie. You can make a movie now for $500 in tape stock. You could never do that in your wildest dreams with film. Therefore the rapid increase in productions, heavily weighted towards no budget, no name projects, means that of course the amount of video productions will increase and the percentage share of the market that is film will decrease.

But lets take the above statement of the ease and low cost of digital filmmaking and compare it to the absolute numbers from the domestic box office. I mean, is the domestic box office the target or not? Are us indies not coveting our piece of the $100-$300 million a week pie?

Well here is the full 139 films from this week's domestic BO. How many of these films were NOT acquired on, mixed with, or projected with film? Well, lets say that they were all projected with film. How about the other two?

http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=b_o_chart_all&dept=Film&sort=BOTHISWEEK

That's my point.

Here's the top 20 DVD rentals.

http://www.videobusiness.com/index.asp?layout=marketData&content=topvideorenters

That's my point too.

http://www.videobusiness.com/index.asp?layout=marketData&content=topdvdsellers

^ Thats the top 20 DVD sales.

http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=chart_top_250&dept=Film&year=2007

^ Theres the top 250 box offices grosses of 2007. How many have nothing to do with film?




That is my point. I've been hearing buzz for a decade. I myself use digital and love it. I just got done editing 3 scenes of my 24p 1080p period short. But a replacement for the aesthetics of super 16mm or 35mm it is not.

Film ain't dying, it just won't have to be used as a workhorse for projects that don't need it. In fact it's getting better, as Kodak leads the way.
 
In case you haven't surfed the internet much, the film vs. video debate has raged for 30 years, with people declaring 3/4" to be the end of film. Here we are in 2007 and just about every film made is still being made and projected on film.

I'm really not trying to start anything. Clearly this issue means a lot to you for reasons I cannot fathom, so much that you feel the need to be condescending about it. I'm not out to convince you. It's either going to happen (and I believe it is) or it isn't. I guess we'll see.
 
Last edited:
I'm really not trying to start anything. Clearly this issue means a lot to you for reasons I cannot fathom, so much that you feel the need to be condescending about it. I'm not out to convince you. It's either going to happen (and I believe it is) or it isn't. I guess we'll see.

I certainly did not mean to be condescending. I presented figures and theory to support my opinion on the matter. I can't help that you won't find sources of information to back up your claims.

You are the one who came into a thread about the newest development of film and said film is dead. I just returned my opinion on your comment.

The issue means a lot because it is one of the foundations upon which independent filmmakers are in belief today, that because the accessibility of digital filmmaking is at their fingertips, that so must follow the whole of the industry. This has been touted for 30 years, and today I still meet people who are NOT making budgeted films who believe this way. Its interesting that practically everyone I meet who is making budgeted films doesn't. The one area where it appears to have merit is with a Spokane group, North by Northwest, who is in the business of producing DTV family films, who have been touted as making the change from 35mm to HD, although I haven't seen that necessarily yet, because here is their next project, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1084955/ and it is being shot on 35mm.

I was on the phone the other day with a novice to feature producing who said "this digital thing is here now. DV and the internet are changing the way the industry works, you don't have to do it that way anymore." And I about fell off my chair. He's right, it is changing the industry, but to what extent? Well with 4k cameras and plenty of HD available now, where are the big hitters in the box office?

That is where the reality of the situation of the widespread misinterpretation of the meaning of digital filmmaking comes in in my belief, and the longer we perpetuate the myth the longer novices will think "Well shoot all I have to do is buy this here DVX and a computer and some tape stock and I can sell a DVD and go to film festivals!", and personally I think thats a shame. There are probably a lot of talents out there who go and borrow or con 5, 10, 15k for a feature that a distributor will not even bat his eyelash at. He'll look at the mounds of no-name digital films produced each year and wonder what makes yours so special? This isn't to discount the few digital features that do break through, it is to say that the perception of the people getting into the industry of the accessibility of digital meaning the end of film and answer to their careers is formed from reading non-passionate unresearched opinions on forums and at colleges of "film is dead like the titanic". And that is a huge crying shame, and I hope in my small way to combat that problem.
 
Well with 4k cameras and plenty of HD available now, where are the big hitters in the box office?

First of all, as one who works in independent film, why are you so insistent that studio films and big box office movies are the only ones that count, as if indie filmmakers don't exist at all.

Second, on the studio end, I think films like Zodiac, Star Wars, Superman speak for themselves. Several notable filmmakers like Cameron (ironically of "Titanic" fame) and George Lucas have sworn off film entirely. Peter Jackson is considering the Red Camera for his new feature. No less filmmakers than Soderbergh and Fincher are making and releasing films shot digitally. Then there are notable indie films from big names like Scott Frank, who shot The Lookout on the Genesis.

And none of this was true thirty years ago. Even ten years ago. It's a NEW and growing trend that is unlikely to reverse course.

Film has the advantage of entrenchment, but that is it. Sooner or later practicality wins out. The same was true with digital photography. Six years ago, professional photographers were sure that digital could never surpass film and that digital was for no-budget amateurs. Today, the consumer market is almost entirely digital and the pros are quickly changing over.
 
I certainly did not mean to be condescending.

Just to address this issue separately, you have now littered your comments with the idea that anyone who touts digital is a "novice," an amateur who's never surfed the web, college kids, a nobody who's films don't count or mean anything to anyone, and now a con-artist.

You suppose you're going to get people to listen to you as "combat the problem" that way?
 
First of all, as one who works in independent film, why are you so insistent that studio films and big box office movies are the only ones that count, as if indie filmmakers don't exist at all.

I didn't say that at all. I provided a list to the listed 139 films in the box office and the top 200 grossing box office movies of 2007. That is exclusive of independent or studio status, it is absolute. Those are films that have seen at least a limited theatrical distrobution deal. I don't see a lot of films shot for under 100k on high definition or DV there, do you?

Now clearly there is a market for indie DVD's, and some get sold there. If you make a film for $30k and it sells $200k in DVD's thats a nice ROI, and a success. But that is not proof that film is dead, is it? Not when I see a single major independent release that grosses the amount of 100 of these DVDs combined, and it was shot on film and garnered a major distro deal.

Second, on the studio end, I think films like Zodiac, Star Wars, Superman speak for themselves. Several notable filmmakers like Cameron (ironically of "Titanic" fame) and George Lucas have sworn off film entirely. Peter Jackson is considering the Red Camera for his new feature. No less filmmakers than Soderbergh and Fincher are making and releasing films shot digitally. Then there are notable indie films from big names like Scott Frank, who shot The Lookout on the Genesis.

Regarding these, and other films like Grindhouse, Digital is both a practical AND aesthetic advantage, and therefore it fits perfectly. In the case of superhero/comic book type films, they are incredibly CGI heavy. Every scene in Star Wars Episode III (Star I was 35mm) had some sort of massive process, green screen, fx, etc. applied in post, so it would make sense that a film like that would use digital as a way of saving time and money. In each of the examples you bring up, they are cases where the film employs so much digital processing that it makes more sense to begin in a digital medium. Cameron's Avatar is a perfect example.

The Lookout was shot with both 35mm and digital. Again, I'm sure it was mixed footage because the part they needed to do a lot of work to could be shot that way and the rest on 35mm. Also, I wouldn't bring up The Lookout. It lost its ass in the box office.

And none of this was true thirty years ago. Even ten years ago. It's a NEW and growing trend that is unlikely to reverse course.

Thats all true. Nevertheless take a look at the box office, DVD sales or rentals charts, and show me where film is dead because movies that are perfect for digital because they need so much digital processing are being shot digitally or with mixed footage. I don't see it. I also see a lot of people who say they didn't like the look of Superman and Star Wars III, but thats a seperate conversation all together.

Film has the advantage of entrenchment, but that is it.

Have you ever seen what a 4k film set looks like? There are actually MORE people and MORE equipment on a 4k set than a 35 set. The cameras are as big and usually bigger than a 35mm camera. I mean what about film is so entrenching? Here's a shot of Superman Returns with the Genesis:

6826_1152651914.jpg

or if that doesn't work, here's a link: http://www.studiodaily.com/images/articles/6826_1152651914.jpg

Does that situation look warm and inviting to you? Is this the non-entrenchment you speak of?

Sooner or later practicality wins out. The same was true with digital photography. Six years ago, professional photographers were sure that digital could never surpass film and that digital was for no-budget amateurs. Today, the consumer market is almost entirely digital and the pros are quickly changing over.

What we have here is some confusion, IMO, between consumers, and high-end and low-end work, and it falls right into line with my theory that the assumption is made that because x exists and on paper is a better solution, all will choose it.

For instance, consumers choose digital picture DVD and Satellite because their previous choice, analog VHS, sucked PQ wise. The format they had before was actually about the same price, but the PQ was greatly superior to the original Home Video format. That is not so with 35mm vs. 4k.

Between high end and low end work is a different animal. When VHS came out did high-end professionals and TV stations, ENG, etc. embrace it? No. Low-end did. When SVHS came out, the same. When DV came out, the same. Today, many professionals and TV stations are still using beta cameras and decks. I don't know of a single TV station that uses DV as their primary source of feed. Now when HD came along, different story. Now some stations are using HD, and that makes sense because it is practical to do so, and the ability to broadcast OTA HD and cable HD, and the fact that it is seven times their current resolution means it is worth it now. Otherwise, it wouldn't make sense to go that route.

What you have seen is in the areas where film was simply used as a workhorse because thats all they had, those areas are making the switch. When VHS came along, maybe major movies weren't being made on it but you bet that the whole of the porn industry was overnight. When digital still cameras reached the point where Joe Q could buy one for the same price as a film camera AND the PQ was high enough quality, AND computers and internet became mainstream enough for him, Joe Q no longer needs the film camera FOR HIS PURPOSE. And that is your difference. JoeQ doesn't give a Rats ass about the aesthetic quality of him holding up a beer posing with his latest fish he caught out on the river. But you bet when a multi-million dollar production sits down to figure out how to make a 100' wide image look good, they are going to consider all of the possibilities, including film. And they have. And its up there in the box office numbers.

Another area of note is independent filmmakers. As I said before, indies wanted to make movies for no budget and throw them up against a wall and see if they stick. Previous to DV, they had to shoot on 16mm to get any sort of serious reaction at all. That kept 9/10 people out of the game due to the cost. That cost is a drop in the bucket for a major production. So when DV comes along suddenly theres a huge increase in indie no-budget filmmaking but budgeted productions don't budge except where it is necessary. And thats where we are now, 15 years after DV came out.

Sitcoms and network drams are still shot on film, budgeted productions are still shot on film. As the need for CGI and digital intermediates are assessed, the desire to shoot digitally, mixed or wholly, goes up. But that doesn't speak for the volumes of films that don't need those and it doesn't mesh with the current format of projection out there. Digital filmmaking for major release is still given the situation only marginally less expensive and in some cases MORE expensive, it is just as cumbersome to shoot and in some situaions, MORE cumbersome. And to be honest, I don't see THAT changing this year, or even next. Maybe in 5 years. Maybe in 10. But right now, the way it is is the way it is.
 
Just to address this issue separately, you have now littered your comments with the idea that anyone who touts digital is a "novice," an amateur who's never surfed the web, college kids, a nobody who's films don't count or mean anything to anyone, and now a con-artist.

You suppose you're going to get people to listen to you as "combat the problem" that way?

You have completely misquoted me here, I never said such things. I have given real world experience and said the misperception that I run into where people are just getting into filmmaking is that they honestly believe they can set out to max out their credit cards like Kevin Smith and make Clerks for $10k with DV, or Pulp Fiction for $10k and that they will sell it for big bucks. It didn't used to be that way because you had to really know your stuff to pull off a 16mm production. Film is not point-lookatthelcd-shoot. And I see a lot of very talented new people giving up because they run into a giant mountain once they've taken Aunt Bessie and Cousin Tom's money and made a mediocre first-timer issue-plagued DV movie - no distributor wants to even look at it and they're lucky to get a festival or two to show it. I didn't mean this to become a diatribe on new filmmakers, or even independent filmmakers. I meant it to be my opinion of the harm such misperception on the true value that the accessibility and ease of use of digital filmmaking tools affords us, and how the trickle down effect is that those who are new to the industry see others doing it not realizing those others have about an average chance of 1/100 of finding any sort of lucrative distribution deal. The lack of understanding of the business of filmmaking in the 21st century is unnecessarily causing great talents to pull a one-and-done when they realize they have taken money from the people they love but can't repay it because they have an unmarketable product.

Its really a sad situation. I've worked on a couple of films now where the producer/director quit because they couldn't sell their dream film they shot on DV.
 
Regarding these, and other films like Grindhouse, Digital is both a practical AND aesthetic advantage, and therefore it fits perfectly.

You keep citing these numbers to back you up but you're intentionally dismissing every movie shot on digital as some special case that doesn't count. That makes it easy to prove a point when you don't count movies that don't fit your theory.

I wouldn't bring up The Lookout. It lost its ass in the box office.

Again, why is it that studio films and big box office are the only things that count?

the misperception that I run into where people are just getting into filmmaking is that they honestly believe they can set out to max out their credit cards like Kevin Smith and make Clerks for $10k with DV

This kind of thing happened with film and it will happen with DV. It's beside the point. I just sold a DV feature and I'm not even talking about my situation.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe film will be around forever. It's honestly not that important an issue to me. If I get hired to direct a budgeted movie and they want me to shoot film, I will. Ultimately, I just want to make movies.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top