
Kodak Movie Film, at Death's Door, Gets a Reprieve - jamesbritt
http://online.wsj.com/articles/kodak-movie-film-at-deaths-door-gets-a-reprieve-1406674752?mod=e2tw
======
jewel
> "There's a magic to the grain and the color quality that you get with film."

Can be simulated by shooting at the same frame rate (24 fps) plus some post-
processing? It probably wouldn't be simple to write an accurate simulation,
and it could be quite GPU intensive to process, but I imagine it's possible to
get results from a digital camera that are indistinguishable from those using
film.

~~~
cclogg
I find it's still really noticeable in the skin tones and highlights. You can
find lots of comparisons online; once you see film beside digital, the
difference can be pretty huge. Some people in Hollywood still really care
about it... one recent example:
[http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Publications/InCamera/Creatin...](http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Publications/InCamera/Creating_an_Edgy_Anti_Comedy_Look_for_Tammy.htm)
“It’s like we’ve forgotten how great film looks when you see it in
comparison,” Alsobrook remarks. “We looked at each other, and it was a done
deal. There was no question we were going to shoot film. It has a rich, creamy
look to it that you just can’t get any other way.”

One instance where it's very obvious to me was 300 vs its sequel 300: Rise of
an Empire. I tried to find 2 similar images: 300
[http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/dvdreviews46/300_the_complete...](http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/dvdreviews46/300_the_complete_experience_blu-
ray/large/large_300_blu-ray3.jpg) 300 sequel [http://ia.media-
imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTQwMTk3MTU3OV5BMl5Ban...](http://ia.media-
imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTQwMTk3MTU3OV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMDA5NDQyMTE@._V1__SX1857_SY901_.jpg)

So basically I think digital is getting there but it still has a _little_ ways
to go in matching the perceived quality.

~~~
ars
Which is which? The sequel photo looks a bit better.

~~~
cclogg
Darn, looks like I can't edit my post anymore, and HN formatting screwed it up
lol. First link is for 300, second one is for the sequel.

I guess it is quite subjective, but what makes the second one look better to
you? For me the first one, whilst chalked with noise/grain, has a much better
rendition of the skin-tone, along with detail in the highlights, and the depth
of the reflection in her eyes. I guess it's hard to describe really, but
that's kind of why I would side towards the first image.

~~~
ars
> what makes the second one look better to you?

The main thing is the noise on her skin - it makes it look very artificial.
Like it's not an actual person. On her cheek it almost looks like she has
beard stubble.

The background of the first one also looks like a pointillist painting instead
of the real world. (Although I might not notice it in motion.)

I'm not a fan of the skin color either since real people don't look like that.
To me it looks cold and artificial, like I'm looking at a painted robot
instead of a person.

I do wonder how much of this is film vs digital, as opposed to post
processing. Film might not be able to stop grain, but I don't think it needs
to look like that for the color. It suspect it was over sharpened and over
contrasted in post.

~~~
cclogg
Yeah I suspect you are right about post-processing. Good to read your points
though, thanks for the response!

------
greiskul
"Digital files need to be regularly transferred, putting them at greater risk
of being damaged."

Wait, this doesn't make any sense to me, isn't much easier to make a backup of
a digital file compared to an analog movie? The digital file can be replicated
any number of times with no loss of fidelity, and can be transported on the
internet. How is film a better preservation strategy?

~~~
jdnier
Except when ten years have passed and everyone's forgotten about the movie and
tending its backups. Corruption happens, then it's too late. If you have a
film print in a vault, it can be ignored or forgotten for decades and there's
still hope.

~~~
dublinben
Every large studio will have an archive department whose sole job is to
protect the integrity of these films. They won't just 'forget' about a movie
that's been placed into the archive system.

~~~
wcfields
Anyone have any ballpark numbers on how the finished products are saved? Quick
estimation of RED 4K at a _minute_ is about 2.5TB [1]. The file-vaults of
studios then will eventually rival the NSA's data collection warehouse!

[1] [http://www.hdslr-
cinema.com/tools/filesize.php?w=4096&h=2304...](http://www.hdslr-
cinema.com/tools/filesize.php?w=4096&h=2304&d=8&fps=25.000&cust_%0D%0Afps=&s=3600)

~~~
jdnier
From a recent IEEE Spectrum article: "If you were to make a 2-hour motion
picture with an extended color range in 4K and at 48 frames per second, the
raw (uncompressed) movie file would occupy more than 15 terabytes. For
comparison, the total amount of data in all of the e-mails sent in the United
States in one year has been estimated to be 10.6 TB."
[http://spectrum.ieee.org/consumer-
electronics/audiovideo/las...](http://spectrum.ieee.org/consumer-
electronics/audiovideo/lasers-coming-to-a-theater-near-you)

~~~
function_seven
The email estimation seems off by several orders of magnitude. If you follow
the link in the IEEE article, you get this:

> It's estimated that the average size of an email is 75 kilobytes. Say we
> decide that 75 kb average is way off the mark and bump it up to 200
> kilobytes per email times 144.8 billion emails per day times 365 days per
> year and were at just under 10.6 terabytes per year (3 of those Seagate
> drives will do the trick).

But doing that math myself results in:

    
    
       200 000  *  144 800 000 000  *  365  =  1.05 * 10^19
    

In other words, 10 _exa_ bytes. 1,000,000 times more than 10 TB. So, 3,000,000
Seagate drives, not 3.

------
ricardobeat
It's astonishing that in 4-5 years we went from all movies made on film to
100% digital.

~~~
icantthinkofone
It's not 100% digital. I don't recall what the exact number is but it also
depends on what you mean by "movie". Many Hollywood movies and TV shows are
still done on film but an indie guy with little to no money certainly won't do
that nowadays.

~~~
ricardobeat
Film sales declined by 96%. If that Kodad factory closes, the last 4% are
gone.

~~~
icantthinkofone
He's talking about the number of movies that are made, not sales of film.
Among Hollywood movies and TV shows with a reasonable budget, I wouldn't be
surprised if 20% or more use film (as a very wild guess).

------
jdnier
"Kodak's motion-picture film sales have plummeted 96% since 2006, from 12.4
billion linear feet to an estimated 449 million this year. With the exit of
competitor Fujifilm Corp. last year, Kodak is the only major company left
producing motion-picture film."

I didn't realize Fuji had already discontinued manufacturing motion-picture
film. I keep thinking the film business will hit rock bottom and the trickle
of remaining demand will be stable enough to maintain what little is left of
the industry. Sigh.

------
jdnier
Why is this article link grayed out and missing it's up arrow?

~~~
DanBC
It's grey because you have already visted that URL.

It is missing the up-arrow because you have already up-voted it.

~~~
jdnier
Except I didn't submit the article and I hadn't upvoted it or looked at it
yet, which is why I was confused. Thanks for your answers.

