[Tim Wilson]

[Andrew Kimery] “Maybe it was just the 35mm cameras that are no long made. A couple years ago I thought I remembered a flood of tweets when something go discontinued…”

It was Fuji 35. The only film they make now is for archival purposes, with the delightful product line name, Eterna. Its purpose is to create black and white separations for color digital masters. Here’s the story on Fuji Eterna, which won a Sci-Tech Academy Award for its contributions to archival technology.

Film really is the most effective and efficient film preservation medium, with a lifetime reasonably and not at all controversially measured in the thousands of years.

Is there a digital storage medium that reliably lasts 1% of that? Not many, for sure.

And as I noted in an earlier post, Kodak concedes that the vast majority of their film stock is 16mm, Super 8, and black and white. Virtually none of it is large format.

You remember that story from earlier this year, about Kodak signing an agreement with a bunch of studios to keep making film stock? (LA Times here.) The films mentioned in the first post could easily represent the majority of the use of large format film stock.

Here’s a 2014 story that notes that in October 2013, the number was down to 111 worldwide.

In the US, by April 2014, the number was down to EIGHT. Your guess is as good as mine how many remain a year later.

However many there are, Kodak also acknowledges that those film labs are subsisting almost entirely on the same 16mm, Super 8, and bw processing that — apart from the studio deal — Kodak is subsisting on themselves.

So, film ceasing to exist in any form? Of course not. Not ever. Ceasing to exist as an artistic medium? No, no more than people have stopped painting on walls.

Ceasing to exist as a viable business? Already there. I’ll bet that there are more people making a living on the Renaissance Fair circuit in the US than there are in the film manufacturing and processing business. So yes, let us be clear: the arts of ruffled collars, brewing mead, and cafes that only sell turkey legs are very much alive too.

Pretty soon, film production will be down to just be JJ Abrams, Quentin Tarantino, Wes Anderson, and David Mathis. The good news, David is that Kodak will make sure you have all the 16mm stock you need, and at least one lab to process it in.

[Tim Wilson]

[Ryan Holmes] “Tim, I’m no spring chicken here at the COW. There’s no way you don’t have an opinion about this! 🙂 I’ve been around long enough to know better….”

Hey, I admitted that it might be a first. LOL

I actually don’t have an opinion. I know a lot of facilities that have gone all-in, or nearly all-in, with Blackmagic, including the three Bob mentions. I know of a couple of Major Motion Picture Studios whose in-house is all-in with Blackmagic. I know of a couple of sports and concert arenas who are all-in. I haven’t heard a peep from any of my peeps in any of those places that anything is amiss.

But folks here say they’re having issues, so I asked. But I certainly don’t have any opinions on anyone’s reports of their own experiences! I mean, it’s one thing if I don’t respect the person’s understanding of the products or processes, but that’s not at all the case here.

[Ryan Holmes] “Maybe there’s room enough in the industry for both? Low margin player like BMD vs higher margin players like Canon/Apple/AJA?”

I think there is. I know that Canon is going great guns right now. You can see it in the ads here, but I also see it in the forums and out in the world. I’ve asked a number of consultants, resellers, etc, and they agree, Canon is on a massive roll.

But once they arrived, I’ve heard good things about the BMD cameras. And that’s certainly the reports from Bob’s clients for the Studio Camera. He mentions its limitations of course, as have others on this thread…but the price-performance ratio seems pretty compelling.

So, buyers being wary notwithstanding, that’s the kind of question I’m asking. Okay, disk recorders and some I/O have AJA alternatives. I asked about switchers — what about studio cameras?

And yeah, BMD’s first Teranex releases shipped late and with issues, but now? 12G-SDI up to UHD for $1395? Wow. And are people still having issues? And, seriously, who’s your alternative vendor? And for how much?

Again noting, I’m not passing judgement for once. (Or technically, now twice.) I’m just asking. Sure, pay more for security…but I’m really not aware of meaningful alternatives in a price range just a little more expensive. I think you have to get a lot more expensive…yes? Or…?

[Tim Wilson]

[Jim Wiseman] “What is missing is the improvements made after this period”

Quite so! I was speaking about my personal experience, and I’m very glad to hear yours! I’ve been out of the direct editing game this century, so I didn’t have much to add about M100 since Boris took it over.

Like you, I’m very glad to see this once-proud brand unambiguously present itself as a viable part of the toolkit for any dinosaurs willing to tolerate tracks and other arcane, long-discredited concepts. LOL

[Oliver Peters] “One of the strengths Media 100 offers is as a lightweight QuickTime-based editor. As Apple walks away from QuickTime, this might actually be useful. In addition it’s also a very good editor for working with native RED files.”

Exactly. Perfect examples. My impression is that Boris FX has not been promoting Media 100 as a reason to leave one’s current NLE, but rather as a capable utility. Adding a couple of very capable tools to the kit for only $99 seems pretty cool.

Certainly not something to get upset about. Fast, cheap, and familiar may be just the ticket.

[Tim Wilson]

[Ryan Holmes] “AJA has killer support. And in a pinch that can be the difference between getting the job done or not.”

That’s as may be, but what about the parts of the BMD product range that AJA doesn’t cover? Like switchers? What have your alternatives been for those?

Not meaning to debate or be contrary. I have no experience with any of this, and for once, am using this as guidance to not have an opinion. Just curious.

[Tim Wilson]

Okay, now THIS is a thread. LOL

As my business evolved in the 90s, I built it around Media 100, taking out a second mortgage on my house to do so.

And my first job after my life as a Media 100 editor was working for Boris as his Director of Marketing, and the product manager for Boris FX and Boris RED. Some of the most fun I’ve ever had.

So while I’ve been out of the game long enough that I’m not longer qualified to respond to the “come back” part of the thread, I think Jim’s enthusiasm is entirely rightly placed.

And I’m excited in some typically tangential ways to spin some old-guy yarns.

If you’ll indulge me, multiple replies at once….

[Jim Wiseman] “I do believe that Media 100 is older than the COW.”

Yes! The COW was founded in 2001…BUT NOTE….as some of the old-timers will recall, the COW’s immediate predecessor community was The WWUG, short for The Media 100 Worldwide Users Group. It wasn’t the first web-based community for media professionals (the second I think), but it was the one that stuck.

And I’m just remembering as I write this, the WWUG started in JUNE 1995 — 20 years ago this month!!! I think I’ll write some more about this, but here’s a super-speedy summary as close to on-topic as I can make it.

I wasn’t there for year one. I was still using Adobe Premiere, my first NLE, and one reason that I will always feel spiritually attached to Adobe in ways that have exactly zero to do with my life with them today as one of the COW’s strongest supporters from the COW’s first day. I owe my life in this industry to them.

But at least as much as Premiere: After Effects, which I started using in 1993, the year before Adobe bought it. Among my peeps, I was by no means an early adopter. I was a late adopter.

But, After Effects in hand, I did merrily show up to the WWUG in 1996. The WWUG too was my life, and I owe more than my career to the WWUG. I owe what little sanity I’ve maintained, and the most enduring friendship of my life, with Ron Lindeboom, built over many cross-continent conversations well into the wee hours of the morning, about rock and roll long after we exhausted “work” topics, feet up on my desk in the edit suite.

So yes, Media 100 is older than the COW, but the WWUG was right there at the very beginning.

I could even argue that the success of Media 100 was even more predicated on the success of the WWUG than After Effects, and I think I’ll do so at length in an article. The WWUG was there before Media 100’s own website was, iirc.

It is DEFINITELY worth noting that Netscape Navigator had only been released in December 1994. Six months later in those days was a very long time indeed, and the Lindebooms were publicly pilloried for the lunacy of building a community ON THE INTERNET, which was filled with nothing but poser nobodies.

Well, nobodies, yes. Posers, no. Those of us in small towns (mine had 8000 people in it) were deadly serious, because we weren’t playing with house money…except in the sense of the guys like me who literally put our houses on the line.

Needless to say, regardless, internet-based communities, including the WWUG, won in the end.

[Bret Williams] “Adobe After Effects owes much of it’s early success to Media100 editors who had no choice but to use After Effects if they wanted to do anything but a cut, dissolve or a wipe. “

I somewhat disagree. BORIS FX owes its early success to Media 100’s limitations. Media 100 was the second host — the first was Premiere — but Media 100 is the one that set it on firmer footing among the first wave of nonlinear broadcast deliver-ers.

More broadly, I think Media 100 owes its EARLIEST adoption to After Effects.

Don’t forget that Media 100 HARDWARE included the option to use Premiere SOFTWARE, aka Media 100 qx.

But Media 100’s FIRST primary use was not editing at all. Virtually the entire first wave of Media 100 boards were sold for frame-accurate, real-time output of After Effects animations to BetaSP tape. We could then walk over to any TV station with a tape whose picture quality rivaled anything else, at any price….but whose animations vastly exceeded anything else possible at any price.

Avid, Quantel, Discreet, pfeh. All limited to a finite set of effects. After Effects was limited by nothing but your imagination.

If we’re being honest, though, it’s not any NLE or even After Effects that turned desktop video into an actual revolution. It was the Sony UVW 1800 BetaSP deck. THAT’s what affordably (only $10,000!!!) enabled ANYONE to compete with ANYONE.

But no doubt, the heart of it was the combination of Media 100 and After Effects. The running joke was that even the top of the line Media 100 with its own (limited) real time NLE environment still offered its greatest value as a $30,000 real-time, frame-accurate output of After Effects animations to BetaSP tape.

It wasn’t until after the dust settled from a very nearly fatally botched transition to Power PC in 1997 that Media 100 could really, truly elevate itself as the unchallenged heavyweight champion of the Mac-based desktop REVOLUTION.

(Mac partisans, including myself, largely missed the equivalent revolution happening on Windows, but that’s a story for another thread.)

(The spectacular, nuclear-grade self-immolation of Media 100’s botched transition from 2.6.2 – 3.0, and the Gaudi board soon after, is part of what made me roll my eyes a bit when people squawked about FCPX. Yes, I felt your pain…but back in MY DAY, WE KNEW PAIN. LOL Old guys suck. LOL We really do.)

(Also of note: Media 100’s 1998 bidding war with Apple for Macromedia Final Cut, well beyond the scope of even this tangent.

Ironically, Media 100’s rumored plan –which could be verified or shot down by any number of you who might have been in the know; I was just a schlub customer — was to use it as the front end for a WINDOWS-based system, since no Mac system had the real-time juice to really make Final Cut fly in REAL real time.

Indeed, the demos of Macromedia Final Cut at NAB 1998 were on Windows for that very reason. I still have my Windows disk for Final Cut, as well as my Macromedia Final Cut t-shirt, linked elsewhere here in the COW.

Also of note: the purpose of Final Cut wasn’t to compete with Avid or Media 100. It was to create a consumer-grade application for the new iMac when Adobe declined to sell Premiere to Apple for this purpose. John Buck wrote about this at length in part 2 of his marvelous book Timelines. So I think of the later accusations of FCPX as iMovie Pro as boldly ironic.)

BTW, one adopter of Media 100 for virtually the sole purpose of outputting real-time frame accurate After Effects animations to BetaSP tape: one Ronald T. Lindeboom, and the business he ran with his wife Kathlyn, who was the one who founded the COW.)

(No matter what he has tried to tell me over the years, I insist that the “T” stands for “Tiberius.”)

Regardless of which was chicken and egg — and do note that an early code name for After Effects was “Egg,” and the egg always comes first, always — there is certainly no doubt that the roots of After Effects and Media 100 (both hardware and software) are inextricably entwined.

Also yet another way in which Adobe made all the difference in my early business.

[Scott Thomas] “to me it was that Vincent card that made great pictures that put it on the map, not the editing interface.”

Agreed, obviously. That and real-time frame-accurate output. I can’t overstate the importance of that. If you couldn’t deliver air-ready Beta SP, followed by DigiBeta, you weren’t in the game.

Avid was equally obviously playing a different game until Media 100 forced their hand with Media Composer Express around the turn of the century…but yeah, the image quality from Vincent was unlike anything else when it was introduced.

[Jeremy Garchow] “Media100i where the i stood for Internet”

And I was the first one to write about it!

Actually, the second, but I was the first to get it right. LOL A couple of hours after the first guy whiffed.

What happened is that M100 had briefed…somebody, I forget who…who was given the official pre-release screen caps and all that….and he simply fell short of the mark.

So I did what any viciously ambitious a-hole would have done in my position. Read his article, make my best guesses, swipe the screenshots (which were clearly provided by Media 100 and were therefore fair game), and write the article he should have written. LOL Mine’s still online — barely — thanks to the Wayback Machine.

Part 1 was Media 100 i: Delivering The Future, Ahead of Schedule.

Including the fact that the “i” was standalone. Not “Media 100i,” but Media 100 i.” A gross miscalculation on their part, and a sign the company’s days were numbered. LOL Kidding…but still, c’mon. Media 100i, dammit.

Part 2 is after I got to actually speak to someone at Media 100. LOL I had wanted to get Part 1 up ASAP, so the LAST thing I had time for was to get the thing vetted. Thankfully, I discovered I’d been mostly on the right track.

That article was a 2-parter itself, but the Wayback Machine has alas only preserved part 1 of Part 2. Media 100 i, Hands On

I stand by my evaluation that Media 100 i was far ahead of its time. Too far. With no real way to serve online video — years before YouTube — and no real way for most people to view it, many of the “i” features were useless. If they’d been directed to DVD, they’d have stuck the landing (things like interactive keyframes and chapter marks on the timeline), but there was no reason to bet on that just yet…

….and in fact, it turns out that the web has largely beaten DVD, yes? With no meaningful interactivity in video streams. It wasn’t until Blu-ray with the pop-up menus that actual interactivity was a thing, long after Media 100 i had passed away.

[Walter Soyka] “I have to confess I don’t understand the current positioning of Media 100. What niche in the market do you think they hope to occupy?”

I think Jim is right. Guys like him. The heart of the niche they’re aiming for is former Media 100 guys, and I think its sweet spot is guys like Jim, who are also using other NLEs such as FCPX.

Note that Boris himself is a former Media 100 guy. He came into this industry to build Media 100’s effects engine.

(He wanted to become a rocket scientist in his native Russia, but he told me he soon realized “there was no such thing as a Jewish rocket scientist in Russia.” He found his fortunes working across Europe before landing at Boston University to teach graduate-level mathematics. Part of why he prefers that his engineers hold PhDs. He wants guys who would have passed the classes he taught.)

He’s a very entrepreneurial guy, and like many entrepreneurs, is always looking for projects.

The first of them was of course Boris FX, within which he has aggressively developed an array of products well outside what most of us typically deal with..but there also have been some very interesting acquisitions along the way. Among the first, Final Effects Complete, which was once the most prestigious name in AE plug-ins. There was actually a time when many people bought After Effects PRIMARILY, if not SOLELY, to run Final Effects. More recently of course, Boris acquired Imagineer.

In between, Boris had a chance to buy Media 100, and I can’t imagine any scenario in which he’d pass on that. Coming full circle at all.

When I worked there, I experienced first hand the delicate balancing act he has to live with. The fact is that Boris mostly makes plug-ins. Host applications allow him to plug in at their pleasure. They have ZERO interest in providing Boris the resources to develop a meaningful competitor to them, whereas the “niche product for Media 100 guys working with other NLEs” model makes a lot of sense.

And so, Boris isn’t primarily in the business of competing with other NLEs.

That’s why I’ll be surprised to ever see him ride his mount into the gates of hell, six guns blazing from each hand, with his sword and reins between his teeth. As much as we former Media 100 guys fondly remember when that company was all about cracking heads, Boris cant afford to undermine the heart of his revenue stream, nor is he inclined to.

(In re: cracking heads, my first week at Avid, Media 100 was saddling up on Media 844/x, and had emblazoned across their front page, “Avid Sucks.” Nobody had EVER been so aggressive in this industry toward a competitor. I doubt many competitors ANYWHERE are that aggressive on their front pages. Believe me, this was taken with the utmost seriousness inside Avid. Media 100 drew blood in ways that Final Cut never did, and still hasn’t. Also fun: Avid and Media 100 were basically crosstown rivals in Boston.)

Anyway, as far as Boris’s strategy for Media 100 software, I’m guessing. I haven’t asked this time, and he knows better than to tell me. LOL I’ve certainly never spoken to anyone at another company about the NLE aspect of Boris’s business. It’s just a guess, but I’m pretty sure I’m at least pointed in the right direction.

In the meantime, I do think that Jim is rightly excited, and think that Media 100 really does have some good things to offer, especially to its former fans. For the price, it’s genuine insanity for them to pass up, imo, even if just for kicks.

[Tim Wilson]

[Douglas K. Dempsey] “I have adjusted to “Library-Events-Projects” but to a client or friend I can only apologize.”

and

[James Ewart] “I’m sure people will think “why is he still banging on about that?” …. because I have to call it a ‘project timeline’ to be certain I am communicating clearly.”

I call this kind of thing the Pebble in the Shoe Principle. As hard as it is to climb a mountain, it can be excruciating to walk a short distance on flat ground with a pebble in your shoe.

Apple may have created a previously unimaginably efficient mountain mover, but that doesn’t mean that they haven’t also created a number of brand new pebbles that didn’t need to be created, and placed them squarely in your shoes.

This language is still a problem. It never had to be.

Of course, pebbles are stone age, and dinosaurs are stone age, so everyone who finds these shiny space age terms occasionally exasperating is surely a dinosaur, right? Right.

[Tim Wilson]

[Michael Gissing] “A pervasive argument in film’s favour is its proven archival value. “

I agree that the film is by far the most reliable archiving medium, but that has nothing to do with acquisition. Plenty of digital material is printed to film for preservation. That’s the key workflow of the Library of Congress, for example, for exactly that reason.*

In fact, Fuji HAD been right behind Kodak for motion picture film, but stopped motion picture film production in 2013…EXCEPT for archival print film! THAT’s the part of the film business that remains an ongoing concern for them, because film really is a straight legit archival medium. There’s a future in it, not just a past.

Gotta love the new product line name for their archival film product line, too: Eterna. LOL Beautiful. Anyway, here’s Fuji’s 2013 announcement of the end of film production for anything but archiving.

For that matter, though, I imagine that most projects shot on film will be digitized at some point. Scratch that. I’d say virtually ALL film projects are digitized at some point. Certainly for theatrical distribution, including “film” festival distribution — but not necessarily strictly theatrical distribution.

For example, would you really be shocked if David Mathis’s next Bolex epic gets transferred to Blu-ray at some point? Or maybe posted here at the COW? (Yes David, that’s an invitation. LOL)

So, the superiority of film for hundreds of years-grade archiving is just that, nothing more. Not at all an argument in favor of film as an acquisition or distribution medium, because acquisition, distribution, and archiving are all independent of each other.

*re: the Library of Congress and film as an archiving medium: we ran a fantastic article about this a few years ago that I can’t recommend highly enough, one of my favorites that we’ve ever run: The Library of Congress Unlocks the Ultimate Archive System, by The Library’s Ken Wiseman.

Spoiler alert: the ultimate archive system is film.

What’s really striking is that non-nitrate film has what’s called a Preservation Index north of 2000 years. Two thousand! Also striking: that number is what Ken calls “non-controversial.” Nobody in the preservation community is pushing back on the notion that temperature-controlled film can still be usable in 2000 years.

I know a number of people are taking the “under” on whether there are still humans in 2000 years. I’m taking the “over.” But for me, it’s a push bet whether or not we still have eyeballs. LOL

No kidding though. Read the article. You will be amazed and astounded, and the Americans here will take enormous pride that there’s at least one really smart guy on the Federal payroll. LOL

[Tim Wilson]

[Craig Alan] “completely false expectations”

That’s the key phrase on the entire thread.

After starting the thread with a sympathetic but neutral, “tell me more” perspective, I’m now steamed on Eric’s behalf. The question for me has shifted from “What might you have done to pass the test?” to, “At what point do we declare that the training center has flunked?” — because that’s about where I’m at now.

And do note, I’m not laying this on Apple. Just the training center…but as I’ve thought about it for the last couple of days, I think Eric is on to something.

I reject the word “scam” though. Some of you geezers may recall that I had at one point banned it from the forum because it was being so abused in re: FCPX. X is/was not a scam because there was a price paid and a product delivered exactly as described in videos that had been available for months.

There was no scam in this case either. Money was taken and services were provided: three days of training given by a skilled, engaged, engaging instructor. No scam.

I’m a little more comfortable with the word “deceptive,” and VERY comfortable with the word “misleading.” They surely know that it takes more than basic knowledge of OS X and video terms + these 3 days to pass the test, but that’s exactly the impression they gave.

This thread has featured a lot of great insight into the current state of testing, the very high skill level it takes to pass one, and the general value of certifications — but ZERO reconciliation with the training center’s message that a basic familiarity of OS X and some general video terms is enough background knowledge for taking the class at all.

THEY set the expectation that somebody going through three days of training with no more background than that has a reasonable expectation of passing a very difficult test.

Which is simply not true. You know it. I know it. Eric’s “mistake” was taking the word of the people who wanted to take his money.

I’m not saying that everyone who works in that center is operating in bad faith. Probably just a couple, maybe even just one: whoever approved that description for dissemination into the world.

I also find it galling to see such a high price for retests. That’s money they’re basically pulling out of thin air. In fact, if the results of Eric’s class are typical, the center may not be making most of their money from training at all. They may be making most of it from retests that they didn’t warn the high likelihood of.

That is, a translation of this transaction might be, “We led you a little astray on the prerequisites, we didn’t prepare you well enough to pass the test, and we’re going to take some more of your money now.”

I’m not saying that everybody should pass on the first round. As I mentioned, I understand that tests are designed to ensure that this doesn’t happen, and I support that.

But I support honesty, too. Unless somebody can tell me, nope, Eric is wrong, that’s not at all what what they said the requirements are, then I give Eric’s position the nod: the training center said something that isn’t true — that basic OS X + video terms + 3 days of training = probably passing — even though they knew it wasn’t true.

They owe our community as a whole more respect than that. TELL people how hard the class will be, how hard the test will be, and how likely it is that they’ll be to need to retest.

They KNOW the percentage of people who pass on the first try, but they’ve made an explicit choice not to tell people. My guess why: they imagined what would happen if they were honest, and felt they couldn’t take the risk.

Look, when you choose a school for your kid, you can find the graduation rate. It’s easy. Good schools BRAG about graduation rates. They WANT you to know. Yet these guys don’t?

Let’s say that they WERE willing to say what the first-try completion rate was. What level of failure is it reasonable to YOU as a customer to accept? Would you find it acceptable if they told you that 30% of people fail on the first try? 5%? 50% What’s the number you’d find acceptable?

If the number they were to advertise is anything like what Eric described for HIS class (ZERO), people would go nuts. “Seriously? Are you insane? How can you try to tell me that you’re good at your jobs?”

Or the potential applicant might say, “Okay, I’ll roll the dice that I’m smarter than average, but maybe I’ll add a retest to my budget.”

But they’d KNOW the pass/fail percentage before they spent any money, and would evaluate accordingly.

So, no way would I say “scam” in the sense of criminal fraud, but I’m definitely ready to say, “You are operating in bad faith, but it won’t take much to do better, so DO BETTER.”

I have no doubt that people will disagree with me, but if you’re going to take me on for what I’m actually saying, I insist that you start where Eric started, which is where I’m now starting, with the testing center’s impression that the basic knowledge of OS X and some video terms is enough to give you more than a puncher’s chance of passing.

Is that true? The consensus on this thread is no, of course not. It’s not even close. You need MUCH more than basic OS X knowledge, MUCH more than some video terms, AND much more than 3 days of classes.

Yet the training center didn’t say that, and didn’t give ANY expectation of the likelihood that a retest would be in order….SO:

— They don’t know what it actually takes for their students to succeed: Incompetent

— They know what it takes, but they’re not telling: Bad faith.

Sorry this turned rant-y, but I really am steamed. So talk me down. Just try it. I dare ya. I DOUBLE DOG dare ya. LOL

No kidding though. How are they doing right by Eric and the rest of us, whether they know the truth and aren’t telling it, or whether they just don’t know?

[You’ll note at the top that I edited this. Edited to make it shorter and milder. Yeah really.]

[Tim Wilson]

There will always be people shooting on film. Just like there are people who chisel sculptures. Artists will do whatever it takes to achieve their aesthetic. Anything.

The larger question is when film is considered an archaic medium primarily practiced by a passionate adherents who embrace it because it’s archaic. In that sense, crafts like armory and blacksmithy are very much alive. Are we not at that exact point with filmmaking on film? The Hollywood equivalent of the Renaissance Faire — embracing the archaic craft because it’s archaic, a playful but sincere rejection of modern values as the only ones worth pursuing.

Looking at that list, the thing that struck me is how few films are shot on film. I know that that list is about emphasizing the awesomeness of the specific movies, without attempting to be comprehensive, but Hollywood released 697 movies last year, about a dozen of which Kodak calls out.

The thing is that those dozen probably do represent a meaningful percentage of films shot on film.

We ran an article exactly year ago, raising the question of when film labs would go away, and the answer is, we’re pretty much there. The Last Film Lab?

The article pointed out that there were then 9 members remaining in the Association of Cinema and Video Laboratories, with one about to close. That makes 8 as of last April. I don’t know how many more closed in the year since, but I’d guess a couple. In any case, the ACVL no longer exists. Not enough members left to even pretend it was an Association.

Even Kodak admits that the remaining film labs that remain are trying to hang on a business that’s focused almost entirely on 16mm, Super 8, and bw. There are, says Kodak, virtually none whose business includes 35mm and up. A couple dozen in the entire world.

Which is another reason why I’m guessing that the majority of films being shot on 35mm is coming out of Hollywood, for the simple reason of access to labs.

The other thing that strikes me about that list is how old the directors are. Only three under 50, and one of them is 48, and the other 49.

For Abrams on Star Wars, I feel like he’s more committed to wide screen anamorphic. I’m willing to bet that the next generation of digital anamorphic filmmaking will be enough to get him off film forever.

There are also a number of folks in these quarters whose favorite application of film isn’t shooting, but projection. Film distribution really is dead…outside of a few specialty houses who, lie the extreme artists, will do anything it takes to achieve an aesthetic.

So to circle back, there’s a big gap between archaic and dead, but as big as it is, at a certain point, it’s also moot.

[Tim Wilson]

It’s called Google my friend. The internet itself enables our community to transcend space. Google enables it to transcend time.

Searches are based on relevance, and thanks to our long history of relevant replies — predating Google! — the majority of Creative COW’s NEW traffic comes from OLD posts.

This is the primary reason behind making the forum index view default to placing threads with the newest posts on top. A thread is “current” when someone is “currently” posting on it.

Note that this is the default behavior of every forum on any topic these days, and that’s the reason why.

Your guide through space and time,

Tim Wilson
Editor-in-Chief
Creative COW