Any truth to the rumors of the end of 35MM film?

[Batman1980]

I would imagine individual filmmakers would have enough say to use whichever film they want to shoot their movies.

[Cook]

Yes, the last two companies that still produce 35 mm film and equipment will no longer do so after this year.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by Cook

Yes, the last two companies that still produce 35 mm film and equipment will no longer do so after this year.

Wow can't believe it's actually true, also can't believe there isn't more of a reaction/uproar about it.

[P@t_Mtl]

Most of the uproar would have to come from Hollywood and really these days Hollywood is just too busy playing with all their new toys that I am pretty sure most of them have not even notice

[masoud90]

Sigh.

[BluBonnet]

Don't worry - there most be some kind of software so you can shoot digitally *and* add some layer of grain in post-production, so it *looks* a little bit more like 35mm.

/SarcasmOver

[42041]

Originally Posted by Cook

Yes, the last two companies that still produce 35 mm film and equipment will no longer do so after this year.

Where'd you hear that? Kodak's obviously in trouble but I haven't heard anything about Fuji.

[Arkadin]

seems inevitable to me.
sad as it is.

[Jimmy Smith]

Now that its finally possible to capture the same detail of 35mm film digitally I don't understand why anyone will miss film. It had a great run but its time to move on. 4k 3D red digital shot movies like Prometheus, The Amazing Spider-Man, and The Hobbit should blow any film out of the water with a clean realitic natural looking image

[42041]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

Now that its finally possible to capture the same detail of 35mm film digitally I don't understand why anyone will miss film. It had a great run but its time to move on. 4k 3D red digital shot movies like Prometheus, The Amazing Spider-Man, and The Hobbit should blow any film out of the water with a clean realitic natural looking image

"Clean and realistic" is not always the target. I doubt you'd find many issues of American Cinematographer where some DP isn't talking about how he deliberately "degraded" the image in some way.

I'm into photography and I've got a nice DSLR and high-quality lenses, but when I'm able to, I often take a film camera loaded with slide film and use an old, soft lens because I tend to prefer it to the clinical/sterile look of digital cameras and optically perfect glass. Needless to say, all the film gear I have will be quite useless if film disappears

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by 42041

"Clean and realistic" (

But why not?

Movies should resemble the real world as close as possible in my opinion. Film grain is distracting and makes it look like it was shot in a sandstorm. I look out my window and I don't see film grain so I don't see why it should be there in a movie.

[RiseDarthVader]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

But why not?

Movies should resemble the real world as close as possible in my opinion. Film grain is distracting and makes it look like it was shot in a sandstorm. I look out my window and I don't see film grain so I don't see why it should be there in a movie.

I disagree on your opinion that movies should look like real life. A director and DP can use the look of the film to express so much by even subtle changes in the look. For example in the opening of Casino Royale different film stock is used depending on the which of the 2 people Bond was killing. The first target he killed in the bathroom uses a much coarser grain to make it seem more like a rough and dirty kill. While the 2nd target killed in their office uses a very fine grain that shows how much more precise and cleaner this kill was.

But I do agree on what you said earlier that digital has matched the detail and look you can get in film as long as you have a skilled DP that can pull it off. For example there is only 1 shot in Super 8 that you can really pick out of the rest if you were told before hand that there would be some shots using digital mixed in with the 35mm anamorphic. With a less skilled DP though and depending on the camera (Super 8 used RED) it does have a awful look when shot in low light conditions with a slow shutter speed.

[AmrlKJaneway]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

But why not?

Movies should resemble the real world as close as possible in my opinion. Film grain is distracting and makes it look like it was shot in a sandstorm. I look out my window and I don't see film grain so I don't see why it should be there in a movie.

"Sandstorms are very, very dangerous", - Anikan Skywalker, 9yo

[Cook]

Originally Posted by 42041

Where'd you hear that? Kodak's obviously in trouble but I haven't heard anything about Fuji.

Regarding the film itself:

http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news...e-dead-by-2015

And the last three major manufacturers of 35mm cameras, ARRI, Panavision and Aaton, have ceased production.

http://nofilmschool.com/2011/10/rumo...r-exaggerated/

http://magazine.creativecow.net/arti...ading-to-black

Effectively, 35mm is dead. Sad as that makes me it is the truth. This isn't to say directors can't get used cameras. However, to fix them means you would need to find someone who can fabricate replacement parts which would be expensive. Besides that e entually these used cameras will be very expensive and hard to find. The film will be even harder to find. Studios don't care that much about 35 to put up with that trouble especially when digital offers so many advantages.

At most it might be a niche used like how some directors use 8mm and 16mm.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Cook

Regarding the film itself:

http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news...e-dead-by-2015

And the last three major manufacturers of 35mm cameras, ARRI, Panavision and Aaton, have ceased production.

http://nofilmschool.com/2011/10/rumo...r-exaggerated/

http://magazine.creativecow.net/arti...ading-to-black

Effectively, 35mm is dead. Sad as that makes me it is the truth. This isn't to say directors can't get used cameras. However, to fix them means you would need to find someone who can fabricate replacement parts which would be expensive. Besides that e entually these used cameras will be very expensive and hard to find. The film will be even harder to find. Studios don't care that much about 35 to put up with that trouble especially when digital offers so many advantages.

At most it might be a niche used like how some directors use 8mm and 16mm.

Well, the first article talks about film projection, which IMO has more serious deficiencies as a distribution medium. I don't know what Arri and Aaton not making film cameras anymore means for shooting on film, but Panavision not making new cameras doesn't necessarily mean much, since they a rental business (they still offer old cameras and lenses from the 70s, even), and demand is clearly way down so there's no need to expand their inventory. 2015? Maybe... but I very much doubt it'll be gone by the end of the year.

[Cook]

Originally Posted by 42041

Well, the first article talks about film projection, which IMO has more serious deficiencies as a distribution medium. I don't know what Arri and Aaton not making film cameras anymore means for shooting on film, but Panavision not making new cameras doesn't necessarily mean much, since they a rental business (they still offer old cameras and lenses from the 70s, even), and demand is clearly way down so there's no need to expand their inventory. 2015? Maybe... but I very much doubt it'll be gone by the end of the year.

In the US it probably will be gone by the end of this year. Christopher Nolan is the only major director I know of that straight up refuses to use digital. He's my gauge. When he switches over you know the winds have changed.

[SpaceDog]

Perhaps that will push directors like Christopher Nolan to go all 70MM sooner than later.
That'd be pretty cool.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Cook

In the US it probably will be gone by the end of this year. Christopher Nolan is the only major director I know of that straight up refuses to use digital. He's my gauge. When he switches over you know the winds have changed.

He's the only one who doesn't master the film digtally, but almost no one has done that in the last 5 years anyway. A very considerable number of films with the budget to do so still shoot film then scan it into a digital intermediate, and this is nothing new.

[Cook]

Originally Posted by SpaceDog

Perhaps that will push directors like Christopher Nolan to go all 70MM sooner than later.
That'd be pretty cool.

Now that I would love. If 70mm went into wider use because of 35mm fades i wouod be pleased. Talk about a phoenix metaphor. The only downside is 70mm is more difficult to use correct?

Its sad film is being replaced at all. I understand its just the natural way of things but damn I'm gonna miss it when it does go away or becomes a niche.

[csdot]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

But why not?

Movies should resemble the real world as close as possible in my opinion. Film grain is distracting and makes it look like it was shot in a sandstorm. I look out my window and I don't see film grain so I don't see why it should be there in a movie.

what