The End of Celluloid As We Know It

[Brianruns10]

Don't forget, the cost of a 35mm print is from a conformed negative. Most films are finished digitally, so you're needing to output to film, which is a hell of a lot more.

For example, the lab I use for my film processing charges $325 per minute to go SD to 35mm. For HD or 2K it's $400 a minute, and 4K it's $500! So it's going to cost you $1500 just to put a 3 minute short onto 35mm. A 90 minute feature shot in 4K, to be recorded to this magical new Kodak stock will cost $45,000. A big jump from $1,500.

[jindianajonz]

You're only accounting for time of the finished film and not all footage shot. So that would be 30TB per film. How many films are made a year? And if we're arguing (as some on this thread are) that digital is cheaper and more cost-effective than film, is it cost effective for the independent filmmaker to store 30TB of material per film in three places and periodically check the files against each other?

And much of your argument is based on the slippery slope that "things will get better in the future" which is conjecture. I understand the logic you're following and while it might address the needs of one particular film, it doesn't account for the volume of all films produced. Also, I highly doubt that many independent filmmakers would realistically add a $1500 line item per film for preservation of the style that you're talking about above.

Is it common for all elements to be archived, as opposed to the final film? I figured the final cut is all that most people would worry about when considering long term preservation.

As far as adding line items per movie (i use this term to avoid confusing the product with the medium), I'm not following your logic. Would paying $1500 up front for film stock be easier than paying $1500 over the course of decades?

[Brianruns10]

You're only accounting for time of the finished film and not all footage shot. So that would be 30TB per film. How many films are made a year? And if we're arguing (as some on this thread are) that digital is cheaper and more cost-effective than film, is it cost effective for the independent filmmaker to store 30TB of material per film in three places and periodically check the files against each other?

And much of your argument is based on the slippery slope that "things will get better in the future" which is conjecture. I understand the logic you're following and while it might address the needs of one particular film, it doesn't account for the volume of all films produced. Also, I highly doubt that many independent filmmakers would realistically add a $1500 line item per film for preservation of the style that you're talking about above.

Is it common for all elements to be archived, as opposed to the final film? I figured the final cut is all that most people would worry about when considering long term preservation.

As far as adding line items per movie (i use this term to avoid confusing the product with the medium), I'm not following your logic. Would paying $1500 up front for film stock be easier than paying $1500 over the course of decades?

Sadly this is often the case and it proves a nightmare for restorers. For example with Vertigo they saved the camera neg, separation masters and 35mm audio neg, and everything else was junked, including the audio stems. So when it came to restoring the audio, they had to rebuild much from scratch.

[zedz]

I think it's a bit erroneous to compare a file becoming corrupted to long term problems storing digital media. If my entire job was to make sure a file did not become corrupted over time, I'm sure I could manage.

But that's the big question: who's paying your salary?

Mitchell and Kenyon didn't have to pay anybody to look after those barrels for 100 years.

But wait, there's more!

If I had a team of people at my disposal, I could probably also create some sort of test program that checks the files for signs of corruption on a regular basis.

[Zot!]

This argument is getting bizarre. From wikipedia:

Martin Scorsese's Film Foundation estimates that over 90 percent of American films made before 1929 are lost

I don't think digital files could do much WORSE than that. Again, I support keeping originals, as I don't feel digital archiving is completely mature yet, but the idea that digital storage is inherently faulty is just wrong.

[MichaelB]

but the idea that digital storage is inherently faulty is just wrong.

No-one's arguing that, but anyone who thinks that digital storage is secure enough to justify junking analogue originals (even assuming you accept the argument that the digital copy is an adequate replacement, which I don't) is living in a dreamworld.

If your digital files last a century, that's great. But can you guarantee that they will? Of course not. But you reasonably can guarantee that this will be true of well-preserved, correctly-stored film.

[Zot!]

but the idea that digital storage is inherently faulty is just wrong.

No-one's arguing that, but anyone who thinks that digital storage is secure enough to justify junking analogue originals (even assuming you accept the argument that the digital copy is an adequate replacement, which I don't) is living in a dreamworld.

If your digital files last a century, that's great. But can you guarantee that they will? Of course not. But you reasonably can guarantee that this will be true of well-preserved, correctly-stored film.

I think keeping the anologue originals until the digital longevity is proven would be a wise decision. But that shouldn't stop digital archival efforts, as there is also no guarantee what a 200 year old film will reproduce.

[JonasEB]

This argument is getting bizarre. From wikipedia:

Martin Scorsese's Film Foundation estimates that over 90 percent of American films made before 1929 are lost

I don't think digital files could do much WORSE than that. Again, I support keeping originals, as I don't feel digital archiving is completely mature yet, but the idea that digital storage is inherently faulty is just wrong.

But the context of the Scorsese quote is that studios in many cases actively sought to destroy the films, both as a matter of course after a film's run and in a concerted effort at the beginning of the sound era to wipe out the useless past to reclaim the valuable materials that composed the film - it wasn't mere deterioration, which the remaining copies, wherever they may be, were susceptible to in an age before our modern storage methods. The organization of how film is preserved was very different then as opposed to circa-1960 or today.

[JamesF]

This argument is getting bizarre. From wikipedia:

Martin Scorsese's Film Foundation estimates that over 90 percent of American films made before 1929 are lost

I don't think digital files could do much WORSE than that. Again, I support keeping originals, as I don't feel digital archiving is completely mature yet, but the idea that digital storage is inherently faulty is just wrong.

But the context of the Scorsese quote is that studios in many cases actively sought to destroy the films, both as a matter of course after a film's run and in a concerted effort at the beginning of the sound era to wipe out the useless past to reclaim the valuable materials that composed the film - it wasn't mere deterioration, which the remaining copies, wherever they may be, were susceptible to in an age before our modern storage methods. The organization of how film is preserved was very different then as opposed to circa-1960 or today.

This. Film archiving as a concept or practice didn't exist in the silent era, never mind the fact that nitrate fires were more common.

[Zot!]

You're proving my point. Films do not inherently survive, they require preservation (outside of some rare 'closet' finds with varying degrees of integrity.) Electronic data retention requires similar responsible stewardship.

[JonasEB]

Granted your point about improvement in handling digital material but you need to compare it to how film is preserved today, not 80+ years ago. With today's methods, any random film produced today should hold up quite fine for the next 100 years (barring natural disasters, fires, "acts of god", etc. - by the way, these are all things that can affect digital archives just as much as a film archive.) The result for today's films won't be the same as what happened to the silent films. Digital management is much more complicated, if not needlessly so, compared to that simple procedure of putting a film in a climate controlled room; the effort of maintaining film today requires less effort than the proposed digital archive. It is essentially secure.

No one is saying digital isn't useful but the idea that it's a superior preservation method is specious at best. We should and need to use both but there is a mass unthinking push towards complete digitization and the "extinction" of film that is legitimately troubling. The option to work with film always needs to be there, not just for new films, but so that we can continue to work with the old ones.

[MichaelB]

No one is saying digital isn't useful but the idea that it's a superior preservation method is specious at best. We should and need to use both but there is a mass unthinking push towards complete digitization and the "extinction" of film that is legitimately troubling. The option to work with film always needs to be there, not just for new films, but so that we can continue to work with the old ones.

When BFI representatives are grilled by politicians wanting to know if they're spending government funds wisely, they're sometimes asked why they bother hanging on to the original film elements once they've been digitised. Thankfully, there hasn't been any serious attempt to change this policy, and I suspect the fact that it actually costs more to preserve digital elements is a powerful argument in favour of retaining film - but who knows what the next few decades will bring?

[Zot!]

Granted your point about improvement in handling digital material but you need to compare it to how film is preserved today, not 80+ years ago. With today's methods, any random film produced today should hold up quite fine for the next 100 years (barring natural disasters, fires, "acts of god", etc. - by the way, these are all things that can affect digital archives just as much as a film archive.) The result for today's films won't be the same as what happened to the silent films. Digital management is much more complicated, if not needlessly so, compared to that simple procedure of putting a film in a climate controlled room; the effort of maintaining film today requires less effort than the proposed digital archive. It is essentially secure.

No one is saying digital isn't useful but the idea that it's a superior preservation method is specious at best. We should and need to use both but there is a mass unthinking push towards complete digitization and the "extinction" of film that is legitimately troubling. The option to work with film always needs to be there, not just for new films, but so that we can continue to work with the old ones.

I agree with your argument. It would be a shame to lose film. But, in a perfect world the two would have no correlation, and it's sad that digital media is a real threat, because it is indeed useful. The biggest benefit of a legitimate digital archive would be it's resistance to physical damage. If you are don't take advantange of the ability to duplicate identical lossless data across locations and time, you lose much of it's value.

[MichaelB]

A report on a recent conference organised by the Association of Moving Image Archivists, one of whose main themes was digital preservation.

[Kirkinson]

Cinema 21 here in Portland just posted this on their Facebook page:

We are incredibly disappointed to have to tell you that we couldn't come through with 35mm prints for the two previously announced programs, NOTES FROM THE UNDERGROUND and A GIRL AND A GUN. The only prints of Fight Club, according to the studio, are battered. The prints for Blue Velvet and Bonnie and Clyde are unavailable right now. And to make things even worse, Warner Brothers tells us they no longer even have a print of Badlands, which just seems too preposterous to be true. So rather than show you guys a bunch of blu-rays, we've decided to post-pone these programs for now until we can do them right.

In recent months Cinema 21 has been making it a source of pride when they announce their programming to show as much in 35mm as they can possibly get their hands on, and they usually come through. They have a Woody Allen series playing now for which they managed to gets prints for everything they wanted to show, and they had a Kubrick series recently that, if I recall correctly, only had one digital screening out of four or five films. This is certainly a good jolt to get me to attend more of these when they happen, knowing that any time a 35mm print is showing of anything it may well be the last time I ever have the opportunity to see it in that format.

[Via_Chicago]

Cinema 21 here in Portland just posted this on their Facebook page:

We are incredibly disappointed to have to tell you that we couldn't come through with 35mm prints for the two previously announced programs, NOTES FROM THE UNDERGROUND and A GIRL AND A GUN. The only prints of Fight Club, according to the studio, are battered. The prints for Blue Velvet and Bonnie and Clyde are unavailable right now. And to make things even worse, Warner Brothers tells us they no longer even have a print of Badlands, which just seems too preposterous to be true. So rather than show you guys a bunch of blu-rays, we've decided to post-pone these programs for now until we can do them right.

In recent months Cinema 21 has been making it a source of pride when they announce their programming to show as much in 35mm as they can possibly get their hands on, and they usually come through. They have a Woody Allen series playing now for which they managed to gets prints for everything they wanted to show, and they had a Kubrick series recently that, if I recall correctly, only had one digital screening out of four or five films. This is certainly a good jolt to get me to attend more of these when they happen, knowing that any time a 35mm print is showing of anything it may well be the last time I ever have the opportunity to see it in that format.

Warner Bros. is a particularly egregious offender. It appears as if the studio is moving quickly to digitize most of its most popular holdings. My guess is that the Kubrick you saw projected digitally was The Shining? It's my understanding that 2001 is now shown exclusively on digital as well.

My issue with this is that it prices out many smaller, independent theaters which are incapable of affording expensive, high-end digital projection equipment. If Warner Bros. won't lend out a 35mm print of, say, Lawrence of Arabia, what hope do many of these smaller venues have in the long run when their profit margins are already so razor-thin?

[htshell]

2001 was just shown in the Walter Reade 70mm series.

I saw Barry Lyndon projected at Cinema 21 a few weeks ago. I was actually very surprised that they did platter projection and not reel-to-reel changeovers. Platter projection is very tough on prints and archives won't let their prints be plattered, perhaps some studios know this and are denying the theater repertory prints because of it. At this point in time, all film needs to be treated as an archival object and with the most care possible. So good on them for choosing 35mm, but unfortunate that it has to be in a way that is so damaging to prints.

The many smaller theaters that can't afford the digital changeover aren't showing Lawrence of Arabia, they're showing The Hobbit and Skyfall and Wreck-it-Ralph. They are in many cases the only movie theaters in small or suburban towns. Repertory prints don't really affect them as much as they do the boutique theaters in bigger cities.

[JMULL222]

The MFA in Boston is having a Kubrick series next month, and everything but CLOCKWORK, LOLITA, and 2001 is on 35mm. If anything, it seems to suggest that Warners lending out 2001 exclusively on digital (or, occasionally, 70mm) could be true.

[Via_Chicago]

The MFA in Boston is having a Kubrick series next month, and everything but CLOCKWORK, LOLITA, and 2001 is on 35mm. If anything, it seems to suggest that Warners lending out 2001 exclusively on digital (or, occasionally, 70mm) could be true.

I'm surprised that The Shining will be shown on 35mm. I was told by the Castro Theater here in SF that Warner Bros. is only lending out that film digitally. Here is the quote from the e-mail they sent to me about that screening: "WB recently pulled all 35mm prints of THE SHINING from circulation. DCP is the only option available to us and we did note the projection format in our printed calendar and website. The unavailability of 35mm prints increases with each passing month."

[GaryC]

The Prince Charles in London - which shows films which have finished their first run, some repertory and special events such as a Singalonga Sound of Music - seems to be making a selling point of 35mm when it can. They recently advertised an all-35mm showing of the Dark Knight trilogy.

But I'm resigned to DCP being a fact of life. I can probably count the number of new releases I saw in film projections last year on one hand, and one of those was The Master in 70mm, before one reel got scratched.

[htshell]

There is a "forum" in the new Fall 2012 issue of The Moving Image (the journal of the Association of Moving Image Archivists) on this topic called "Out of Print: The Changing Landscape of Print Accessibility for Repertory Programming" by May Haduong. It's a great read as the findings result from a poll of studios, archives and programmers.

One thing to keep in mind is that there is not always a definitive rule of "we're not loaning prints on this title anymore." It all depends on who asks. A programmer who wished to remain nameless is quoted as saying:
"In the last few months I've gotten a few e-mails from venues asking about print source information for the titles we screened, and in some cases the venue has been told that a print isn't available for a title they are looking for, when in fact we used a studio print for our screening. We've also in some cases been initially denied a print loan from a studio and been able to negotiate its borrowing through our relationships with the studios. I imagine that venues without those relationships might have less leeway in such situations."

Another disturbing excerpt from the article:
"On a few occasions, the studio representatives who responded indicated that prints would likely always be available to specific venues in the United States, such as the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and MoMA in New York, but that some repertory theaters would receive no such treatment."

[zedz]

Another disturbing excerpt from the article:
"On a few occasions, the studio representatives who responded indicated that prints would likely always be available to specific venues in the United States, such as the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and MoMA in New York, but that some repertory theaters would receive no such treatment."

I don't know if that's necessarily disturbing. If a venue has a track record of print damage, or only has a platter system, I'd hope that studios would keep their prints away from it. This sounds more like an ultra-cautious preservation policy than anything especially sinister.

[htshell]

There are at least a few dozen reputable venues in the country that are extremely capable of handling archival projection: Pacific Film Archive, Harvard Film Archive, Film Forum, Walker Art Center, Northwest Film Forum, Cleveland Cinematheque, etc. As I said a few posts up, I think all film prints should be treated archivally, but I think the sentiment expressed in that quote is one that anticipates shutting out venues that are qualified unless they have an extreme amount of wealth/global cultural cache. I think this will sadly only further limit access to those who aren't in the biggest cities in the country.

[zedz]

I see what you mean. I hadn't thought about the possible motivation of snobbery (or maybe it's more like "we actually don't want to be bothered loaning prints to anybody, but we're not prepared to deal with the shit that will rain down upon us from people we have to suck up to if we say no to the Academy or MoMA.")

[Perkins Cobb]

There's definitely a clout factor. I was recently told that 92Y Tribeca (a small and relatively new repertory screen) partnered with Film Society of Lincoln Center on a series because a studio (or several) would supply prints to the latter but not the former. Although some of the studios will say no to FSLC, also. UCLA has a monthly limit on how many prints they will loan out and if you ask after the quota is filled, you're SOL, no matter which venue it is.