Digital Cinema

[August1991]

I just watched a good movie ("The Bank Job", I recommend it if you'd like a thriller based on true events) but some thing else caught my eye. The movie was "filmed" originally using an Arri D-20 digital camera. I didn't realize this until I read about it later. Granted, I watched the movie at home in HD so I might have a different opinion if I had seen it in the cinema. Digital movie-making is still in its infancy and very few films are recorded digitally. Stilll, it seems obvious to me that digital cinema is about to provoke a huge change in how we watch movies.

Curious, I read this:

Digital distribution of movies has the potential to save money for film distributors. A single film print can cost around US$1200[citation needed] (or $30,000 for a 1-time print of an 80-minute feature[8]), so making 4000 prints for a wide-release movie might cost $5 million. In contrast, at the maximum 250 megabit-per-second maximum data rate defined by DCI for digital cinema, a typical feature-length movie could fit comfortably on an off the shelf 300 GB hard drive—which cost as low as $70—which could even be returned to the distributor for reuse after a movie's run. With several hundred movies distributed every year, industry savings could potentially reach $1 billion or more.

Wikipedia

I know that prints are a major cost for small independent filmmakers. "Celluloid" is also a cost for cinemas since it is heavy and projectors have moving parts.

So, what happens when the cost of a single print falls from $30,000 to about $100? What happens when a cineplex can easily schedule different films at different times?

At first glance, this would seem to remove a huge barrier for small, independent filmmakers. Perhaps, the Hollywood blockbuster is a thing of the past. (To overcome the fixed costs of celluloid, Hollywood had to ensure a large hit.) OTOH, the largest barrier is information. A filmmaker has alot of trouble making the target audience aware of the existence of the movie, and teh target audience has alot of trouble knowing that the film exists. And I still think that many people choose a movie so that they can say they saw it, not necessarily because it is good. Blockbusters, fads and coolness will always be with us. Some people want to be ahead of the trend and hence there will always be a trend.

Anyway, it seems digital cinema will soon radically change the way we understand movies - in the same way that computers have radically changed the way we understand finance over the past 20 years.

(In case you're interested, Get Smart, Chuck & Larry, Don't Mess with Zohan for example were all filmed in digital.)

[kimmy]

I know that prints are a major cost for small independent filmmakers. "Celluloid" is also a cost for cinemas since it is heavy and projectors have moving parts.

It seems inevitable, in the same way that digital cameras have almost completely replaced conventional film cameras. Photography purists said, for a long time, that digital cameras were just toys for amateurs and that they could not compare to the quality of high-end photographic equipment. Which was true for a time, but technological advance bridged the quality gap. Now many or perhaps most professional photographers are using high-end digital equipment instead of high-end conventional film.

And the same evolution is inevitable in cinema as well.

I believe George Lucas was one of the first pushing this in distributing one of the Star Wars prequels. I believe LucasFilm even offered some sort of incentive to theatres to invest in equipment to show digital movies, though I can't swear to it. Theatre owners at the time were, of course, not interested in shelling out a bunch of money to upgrade to a technology that at the time nobody except Lucas was using.

t first glance, this would seem to remove a huge barrier for small, independent filmmakers. Perhaps, the Hollywood blockbuster is a thing of the past. (To overcome the fixed costs of celluloid, Hollywood had to ensure a large hit.) OTOH, the largest barrier is information. A filmmaker has alot of trouble making the target audience aware of the existence of the movie, and teh target audience has alot of trouble knowing that the film exists.

Distribution, not information, is the challenge.

Clever marketting and creative use of the internet can create an amazing amount of interest in a project (the promotion of "The Blair Witch Project" is probably as cunning example of marketting as the movie industry has ever seen... the creators had created huge interest in their film before a single ad was run or a single trailer was shown.) One can look at YouTube videos that have had ten million views or more as evidence of the power of old-fashioned "word of mouth" combined with the new-fangled world of the internet and forums and social networking. You can get people interested in watching just about anything.

But how do you get money?

After all, the idea that film-making (and acting and writing and composing music and all of the other skills that go into creating a movie) are professions rather than hobbies kind of requires that the practitioners be able to earn a living at it, does it not?

At present there's only a few ways you can get paid for creating a film.

You can show it in theatres with paid admission. But in this situation the independent creator is still at the mercy of the big corporations. This means of distribution is almost completely controlled by an oligarchy. Theatre screens are a finite quantity, and these corporations tend to prefer that this resource be devoted to films they've invested a bunch of money in.

You can sell your film to a broadcaster, who will presumably hope to receive advertising or subscription revenue from your film. But again, this means of distribution is controlled by an oligarchy, and as with theatre screens, airtime is a limited resource which broadcasters guard jealously.

The other possibility is selling direct to the viewer, either by means of a distributable medium, or more recently in the form of downloadable content. "Direct to video" is a long-standing example of this: movies which no distributor thinks will be profitable enough to waste theatre screens on are put right on DVD and sold right to the consumer (...generally soliciting a response something like "huh... I never knew they made a sequel to that.") Downloadable content is now being explored by broadcasters as a means of reaching viewers who aren't interested in sitting through advertisements or who can't be bothered to be in front of their TV at a specific time. Rather than park themselves in front of their tv for an hour, a viewer can pay a few dollars, download an episode of a show, and watch it on their Ipod on the bus on the way to work. I don't know what sales are like for downloaded episodes of TV shows, but I would think that in the future this sort of thing might become more common. And I think that ultimately this is also a means by which independent film-makers will be able to sell their art. Online stores will facilitate the transactions for a modest fee, allowing consumers and film-makers to deal almost directly. It won't have the prestige or drawing power of a Hollywood movie at the MultiPlex, but it will be a viable option for independent film-makers to reach their audiences.

And I still think that many people choose a movie so that they can say they saw it, not necessarily because it is good. Blockbusters, fads and coolness will always be with us. Some people want to be ahead of the trend and hence there will always be a trend.

People will still want to go see movies that everybody else went to see? That seems like a safe bet, August, unless humans stop being humans in the near future.

-k

[kimmy]

I was thinking about this a bit after I signed out yesterday, and there were a couple of interrelated points that I pondered a bit more before I went to bed:

At first glance, this would seem to remove a huge barrier for small, independent filmmakers. Perhaps, the Hollywood blockbuster is a thing of the past. (To overcome the fixed costs of celluloid, Hollywood had to ensure a large hit.) OTOH, the largest barrier is information. A filmmaker has alot of trouble making the target audience aware of the existence of the movie, and teh target audience has alot of trouble knowing that the film exists. And I still think that many people choose a movie so that they can say they saw it, not necessarily because it is good. Blockbusters, fads and coolness will always be with us. Some people want to be ahead of the trend and hence there will always be a trend.

Clever marketting and creative use of the internet can create an amazing amount of interest in a project (the promotion of "The Blair Witch Project" is probably as cunning example of marketting as the movie industry has ever seen... the creators had created huge interest in their film before a single ad was run or a single trailer was shown.) One can look at YouTube videos that have had ten million views or more as evidence of the power of old-fashioned "word of mouth" combined with the new-fangled world of the internet and forums and social networking. You can get people interested in watching just about anything.

...

Online stores will facilitate the transactions for a modest fee, allowing consumers and film-makers to deal almost directly. It won't have the prestige or drawing power of a Hollywood movie at the MultiPlex, but it will be a viable option for independent film-makers to reach their audiences.

...

People will still want to go see movies that everybody else went to see? That seems like a safe bet, August, unless humans stop being humans in the near future.

The movie business thrives on herds. They need a herd of people going through the wickets to see a movie during a short period of time.

To be considered a box office success, a movie typically needs to sell $50 million in tickets in North America (much more, for expensive blockbuster productions, probably less for "smaller" movies that cost less to produce and promote, but $50 million seems like a good goalpost for some random film.) And they've only got a short time to reach that target. A movie opens in about screens in the US (and probably a proportionate number in Canada) and runs twice a day for about a month, after which the theatres take screens away from that movie to run a newer release.

So the distribution scheme for movies calls for herds of people. Ideally they'd like everybody to go to their movie as soon as possible, so that they can get their money out of the movie quickly, pull it off the screens, and show the next movie.

Creating herds of people requires marketting. Obviously, creating anticipation, showing promising clips from movies and telling people "you'll want to see this, because it's really great" are all tools that go into marketting, but another prominent marketting tool is "everybody is doing it!" And box office results can play a part in creating that herd.

So, something that immediately jumps out about the potential of downloadable content is that the dilemna of scarcity is removed. The number of screens is no longer a limitation. The time-constraint-- getting people to see your movie fast because they need the screens for the next movie-- is removed. The requirement of creating a herd is removed.

I think this kind of ties in with something that I've come across when discussing music with old-people (meaning, people older than roughly 35...) In the old days, as I hear it, with only a few music radio stations and a few music formats, everybody knew who the biggest stars were, and the most popular songs of the moment. I used to have these conversations with dad where he'd talk about how when he was young everybody knew that Elvis was the big star, and he'd ask me who was the big star now and I'd be completely at a loss as to what to say. With dozens of radio stations and a format for every musical taste, nobody can tell you with any certainty who the biggest star is or the most popular song is. In objective fact, it might be somebody from the country music station, or the urban station, or the pop music station... but the perception of what's big or popular at the moment is entirely a function of each individual listener's perception.

Box office creates the same kind of thing for movies. Each week you can look at the box office results and see which films won the battle for the herd, and which stars are the darlings of the moment. Remove the dilemna of scarcity, the time constraint... and you also remove the herd. The prestige of winning the herd also vanishes.

There might be some "direct to video" movie that has been viewed to some degree that would make it an immense success... but without the box office results and the battle for dollars in the timed-constrained domain of the theatres, that movie doesn't have the prestige that successful theatre releases gain from winning the battle for the herd.

I think people are somewhat conditioned to view the battle for space on screens at movie theatres as kind of a screening process... if a movie studio wasn't confident enough in a movie to release it in theatres, it was probably a pretty weak movie to start with. And box-office failure is a further screening process that people rely on to some degree. A shift to downloadable content would remove 2 of the screening criteria that people have come to rely on in deciding what they want to watch. This is something people would have to get used to. But, the music business has undergone a similar change over the past 20 years or so... the market adapts, people get used to having more choices.

-k

[August1991]

But how do you get money?

After all, the idea that film-making (and acting and writing and composing music and all of the other skills that go into creating a movie) are professions rather than hobbies kind of requires that the practitioners be able to earn a living at it, does it not?

At present there's only a few ways you can get paid for creating a film.

You can show it in theatres with paid admission. But in this situation the independent creator is still at the mercy of the big corporations. This means of distribution is almost completely controlled by an oligarchy. Theatre screens are a finite quantity, and these corporations tend to prefer that this resource be devoted to films they've invested a bunch of money in.

Kimmy, my point above was that even for a small, independent movie - the simple cost of celluloid prints for a reasonable distribution already create an insurmountable barrier.

When cinemas go digital, then this fixed cost of getting distributed disappears. If I can make a comparison, it is costly to print books on paper, store them in warehouses, transport them to bookstores and keep them on shelves where customers can leaf through them before buying. What happens when "books" can be bought on line? Anyone can be a writer. But a part from the fact that an electronic book is not the same as one with creases, there is the issue of "information". The Internet is a big place and how do I know what e-books are good?

Above, I made the point that while digital cinema dramatically reduces one major cost of making a movie, it doesn't overcome the major barrier of information: how do people know that a movie is good or bad? How do they know whether they should go and see it?

The movie business thrives on herds. They need a herd of people going through the wickets to see a movie during a short period of time.

I don't know if I would say that teh movie industry thrives on herds. I think you have it backwards, or you confuse cause and effect. It seems to me rather that herds thrive on movies.

IOW, the movie industry doesn't create herds - the herd creates itself.

I think this kind of ties in with something that I've come across when discussing music with old-people (meaning, people older than roughly 35...) In the old days, as I hear it, with only a few music radio stations and a few music formats, everybody knew who the biggest stars were, and the most popular songs of the moment. I used to have these conversations with dad where he'd talk about how when he was young everybody knew that Elvis was the big star, and he'd ask me who was the big star now and I'd be completely at a loss as to what to say. With dozens of radio stations and a format for every musical taste, nobody can tell you with any certainty who the biggest star is or the most popular song is. In objective fact, it might be somebody from the country music station, or the urban station, or the pop music station... but the perception of what's big or popular at the moment is entirely a function of each individual listener's perception.

It seems to me that Britney Speers and Jessica Lopez are big stars now. I have heard of Hannah Montana. Young kids in Spain know High School Musical and Zac Ephron - or so friends tell me.

I don't think that this is much different except that it is more pronounced now than in the past. Celine Dion is famous around the world in a way that was unthinkable 30 years ago.

Many of us prefer to like what other people around us like. It is costly and time consuming to discover something new, and often all of these efforts lead to nought. It is easier to simply let others do the research. That is the essence of the herd.

Edited February 3, 2009 by August1991

[kimmy]

Kimmy, my point above was that even for a small, independent movie - the simple cost of celluloid prints for a reasonable distribution already create an insurmountable barrier.

And I argue that that barrier applies to only one model of distribution, theatrical release.

And if you want to get a movie to theatrical release, paying for enough prints to get to theatres is the least of your obstacles. I suspect that if a major distributor is sufficiently interested in your film, they'll pay for the prints. I suspect getting them to consider putting your crappy independent movie into theatres at all is the real obstacle, not getting the prints made.

The finite number of movie screens, and the number of movies competing for them, is the real obstacle.

When cinemas go digital, then this fixed cost of getting distributed disappears. If I can make a comparison, it is costly to print books on paper, store them in warehouses, transport them to bookstores and keep them on shelves where customers can leaf through them before buying. What happens when "books" can be bought on line? Anyone can be a writer. But a part from the fact that an electronic book is not the same as one with creases, there is the issue of "information". The Internet is a big place and how do I know what e-books are good?

Above, I made the point that while digital cinema dramatically reduces one major cost of making a movie, it doesn't overcome the major barrier of information: how do people know that a movie is good or bad? How do they know whether they should go and see it?

To some extent the fact that a distributor has decided to put a movie on their screens indicates they have some amount of confidence that the product will be commercial successful... but as a vetting process, that has a drawback: they know (as H.L. Mencken put it) that “Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.” The fact that they put another Rob Schneider movie in their theatres doesn't mean they think it's good, it just means they think there's a couple of million idiots who'll pay $10 apiece to see it.

BTW, a friend of mine is putting together a website for reviews of online fiction; I can give you the URL if you'd like.

I don't know if I would say that teh movie industry thrives on herds. I think you have it backwards, or you confuse cause and effect. It seems to me rather that herds thrive on movies.

IOW, the movie industry doesn't create herds - the herd creates itself.

The movie industry-- the theatrical release distribution model, at least-- needs herds to survive. With a book or CD or home video, people can take their leisurely time and peruse the product whenever they get around to it, and tell their friend who might likewise be inclined to buy the product some months later and so on.

Movie theatres can not afford to wait for customers to enjoy the product at their own leisurely pace. They need a certain number of asses parked in front of the screen within a certain amount of time. They need you to go see their movie soon, because they need the screen for the next movie.

It seems to me that Britney Speers and Jessica Lopez are big stars now. I have heard of Hannah Montana. Young kids in Spain know High School Musical and Zac Ephron - or so friends tell me.

I don't think that this is much different except that it is more pronounced now than in the past. Celine Dion is famous around the world in a way that was unthinkable 30 years ago.

Many of us prefer to like what other people around us like. It is costly and time consuming to discover something new, and often all of these efforts lead to nought. It is easier to simply let others do the research. That is the essence of the herd.

"unthinkable 30 years ago"?

I'm not sure I know what you're trying to get at... is it that kids in rotting 3rd-world hell-holes have access to media in a way they didn't 30 years ago? Because that's the only justification I can see to claim that Celine Dion is famous in a way that was unthinkable for, say, Elvis or the Beatles or back in their heydays well over 30 years ago.

That you'd reach for names like Britney "Speers" and "Jessica Lopez" (whoever she is... did you mean Jennifer Lopez?) sort of underlines the point. These names aren't signficant to you (or you'd have at least spelled them right) and they're of little significance to anybody I know. Haven't seen a J-Lo movie since ... probably "Out of Sight". I don't own any of her records... I don't listen to a radio station that plays any of her songs. I don't own any Britney Spears records either, although I do still have "Hit me baby" on my hard-disc somewhere. And nobody under the age of about 40 likes Celine Dion. Absolutely nobody. It's unheard of.

That Britney and J-Lo retain their aura of celebrity is more a function of weird tabloid fetishism than an indicator of any ongoing relevance of their artistic careers. That Celine Dion strikes you as an example of monumental celebrity is evidence that you're either old, or from Quebec. Spears and Lopez might be bigger in the celebrity business than many of their musical contemporaries, but that's not an indicator that they're more successful musical artists, it just means their trainwreck lives sell more tabloids.

There may still be an audience for Britney and J-Lo and Celine Dion, but the market is so fragmented that if you approached people at random and asked them if they were a fan of one of these artists (or, indeed, probably any musical performer) and you'd be much more likely to get a "no" than a "yes". With dozens of radio stations and a plethora of other means of accessing music, people have an endless variety of options of accessing music that suits their tastes.

The movie business, by contrast, is still very homogenous. There's probably only a dozen major theatrical releases in wide release on any particular day, they run on a finite number of screens operated by just a few major distributors, running releases from a handful of major studios and occassionally an independent release that makes the big time. (TV is much the same: just 3 major broadcasters and a finite amount of hours on the schedule.) You mentioned High School Musical as an example of a phenomenon, and you'll notice that High School Musical is a TV and movie franchise, not a music franchise; likewise Hannah Montana. In TV and movies, it's easy to peg where the herd is at. In music, that has become impossible.

-k

[August1991]

And I argue that that barrier applies to only one model of distribution, theatrical release.

And if you want to get a movie to theatrical release, paying for enough prints to get to theatres is the least of your obstacles. I suspect that if a major distributor is sufficiently interested in your film, they'll pay for the prints.

IOW, you now place the risk on the shoulder's of a distributor - as if that changes anything. Who wants to spend $5 million to create prints?

The whole equation changes when the $5 million investment becomes $100,000 with the same potential return.

Whether a distributor or the original producer, someone has to come up with $5 million.

The finite number of movie screens, and the number of movies competing for them, is the real obstacle.

Here I disagree too. Too many cinema seats are empty. If airlines operated like cinema chains, everyone would be taking the train.

To some extent the fact that a distributor has decided to put a movie on their screens indicates they have some amount of confidence that the product will be commercial successful... but as a vetting process, that has a drawback: they know (as H.L. Mencken put it) that “Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.” The fact that they put another Rob Schneider movie in their theatres doesn't mean they think it's good, it just means they think there's a couple of million idiots who'll pay $10 apiece to see it.

This is the real problem in the cinema business.

The distributor, producer, cinema-owner etc all know that they are selling a pig in a poke. Until a person has seen the movie, they won't know if they'll like it. It's like selling chewing gum to 12 years old.

BTW, I have never like Mencken's comment (or PT Barnum's) and not because I'm some kind of populist. IME, most people (ie. the American public) have a good idea of what matters in their life.

The movie industry-- the theatrical release distribution model, at least-- needs herds to survive. With a book or CD or home video, people can take their leisurely time and peruse the product whenever they get around to it, and tell their friend who might likewise be inclined to buy the product some months later and so on.

Movie theatres can not afford to wait for customers to enjoy the product at their own leisurely pace. They need a certain number of asses parked in front of the screen within a certain amount of time. They need you to go see their movie soon, because they need the screen for the next movie.

I merely meant that many people go to movies (or listen to the news) so that they don't seem clueless around the water cooler. If everyone is talking about Leonardo di Caprio, it helps to know who he is.

Then again, these things change. I know people who take pleasure in misspelling Britney Speirs name.

"unthinkable 30 years ago"?

I'm not sure I know what you're trying to get at... is it that kids in rotting 3rd-world hell-holes have access to media in a way they didn't 30 years ago? Because that's the only justification I can see to claim that Celine Dion is famous in a way that was unthinkable for, say, Elvis or the Beatles or back in their heydays well over 30 years ago.

That you'd reach for names like Britney "Speers" and "Jessica Lopez" (whoever she is... did you mean Jennifer Lopez?) sort of underlines the point. These names aren't signficant to you (or you'd have at least spelled them right) and they're of little significance to anybody I know. Haven't seen a J-Lo movie since ... probably "Out of Sight". I don't own any of her records... I don't listen to a radio station that plays any of her songs. I don't own any Britney Spears records either, although I do still have "Hit me baby" on my hard-disc somewhere. And nobody under the age of about 40 likes Celine Dion. Absolutely nobody. It's unheard of.

When I'm put on hold, I keep hearing Celine Dion. And I recall returning to Montreal once and someone asked me: Have they heard of Quebec? I answered that they had heard of Celine Dion. Some bar in Burma is at this moment playing a Celine Dion song.

Many Quebec singers have tried to break into the US market and Celine Dion was the first to achieve this. IMV, the potential for "breaking into" a market is greater now.

At the same time though, as you note:

The movie business, by contrast, is still very homogenous. There's probably only a dozen major theatrical releases in wide release on any particular day, they run on a finite number of screens operated by just a few major distributors, running releases from a handful of major studios and occassionally an independent release that makes the big time. (TV is much the same: just 3 major broadcasters and a finite amount of hours on the schedule.) You mentioned High School Musical as an example of a phenomenon, and you'll notice that High School Musical is a TV and movie franchise, not a music franchise; likewise Hannah Montana. In TV and movies, it's easy to peg where the herd is at. In music, that has become impossible.

(And frankly, to my ear, the same could be said of most modern music.)

Why is that?

====

In small towns, people rely on word of mouth. Advertising is an affair of large cities.

[kimmy]

IOW, you now place the risk on the shoulder's of a distributor - as if that changes anything. Who wants to spend $5 million to create prints?

The whole equation changes when the $5 million investment becomes $100,000 with the same potential return.

Whether a distributor or the original producer, someone has to come up with $5 million.

Indeed, but you'll notice that we gone from discussing the opportunity for independent film-makers to reach a wider audience (which is quite interesting from a cultural point of view) to discussing shaving a few million dollars off of a movie distributor's bottom line (which is probably only interesting if you own a movie studio...) While I'm no expert on the subject, I believe that the theatres themselves pay a fee for the reels they receive, so perhaps the arrival of digital cinema will be of some benefit to theatre owners. Maybe it'll be easier for theatres to make a go of it. I was quite sad when the theatre on Somerset St in downtown Ottawa closed down... it was a grand old theatre with hundreds of seats and just one screen. New theatres have a dozen screens each with a few dozen seats, and eventually it will become millions of screens each with just one seat.

Whatever the bean-counter implications of digital cinema, I am highly skeptical that it'll have the effect of putting more independent film in your local MegaMultiPlex theatre complex. I just don't believe the price of prints is the significant barrier of entry independent film-makers face in getting their stuff in front of an audience.

Probably the biggest obstacle is that the people who stake their money on such things-- the people who distribute movies, and the people who operate the theatres-- do not believe that the film will make money.

Given the choice between devoting a scarce screen to Trois Fromages Avec August1991, or Paul Blart: Mall Cop, the theatre chooses Paul Blart because he thinks it has a better chance to put enough butts in the seats to make money for the theatre.

Trois Fromages can not generate the herd required at the box-office to make a theatrical release a commercial success. The theatre owner can't show that movie because he loses money that the screen could be making if it had a more popular movie showing.

If it's on iTunes or NetFlix, however, Trois Fromages can survive. It is not costing someone money just by existing on a hard disc somewhere. It needn't pull in a million viewers in its first week or risk being yanked to make way for the next film. The future for independent films isn't digital cinema, it's digital distribution.

-k

[August1991]

Whatever the bean-counter implications of digital cinema, I am highly skeptical that it'll have the effect of putting more independent film in your local MegaMultiPlex theatre complex. I just don't believe the price of prints is the significant barrier of entry independent film-makers face in getting their stuff in front of an audience.

We are only at the early stages of digital savings in cinema. Even for films shot in digital, the files must be converted to celluloid for showing in cinemas.

Incidentally, Slumdog Millionaire was shot in digital using a camera the size of a wine bottle. You can see the camera here:

The digital negatives and "look" metadata are simultaneously recorded to hard drive or solid state disk where up to 4-hours of continuous footage are captured on a single 160GB notebook drive; this is the equivalent of 14-reels of 35mm film which has an associated cost exceeding $25,000 for materials and processing.

This is another aspect of digital cinema: it makes it possible to film in places and settings that would have been difficult before. Danny Boyle realized that it would have been impossible to make his movie with bulky, mechanical 35mm cameras.

Edited April 1, 2009 by August1991

[August1991]

Keanu Reeves (of all people) made a very good documentary (Side By Side) on this topic:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2014338/

It's available on Netflix.

-----

I liked James Cameron's comment: "It's always been fake."

Edited February 25, 2013 by August1991

[August1991]

Now we have Fujifilm deciding that it will no longer be producing motion picture film, and Kodak is continuing its bankruptcy proceedings, selling off its still photography division, and ending its printer business. Just five years ago, the idea that motion picture film may be going the way of the dinosaur was unimaginable.

Link

Amazing.

Edited March 16, 2013 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

Link

Amazing.

Yes, the swiftness of emulsion film's demise has been most surprising. The economics and tech of digital have quickly defeated the artsy purists. I started to panic last year for SLR stills film/slides, realizing that my collection of cameras are now paper weights....at least I can still use the old prime lenses with new digital cameras.

Same thing is happening for magnetic recording tape in most formats. I am stocking up on all types using eBay, which has been a blessing. Fortunately, audio tape does not have to be stored in the freezer.

The death of Kodak is consistent with what the future holds for all people who actually used a Brownie camera.

Edited March 16, 2013 by bush_cheney2004