Does 35mm film have any future ? An interview with Rodrigo Ruíz Tarazona, CEO of Cinelab International, by Cineinforme Magazine Opposite to what is happening in Spain, in other countries including USA, the co-existence of 35mm and Digital has no expiration date. According to some opinion leaders, in all areas of production, post-production, distribution and exhibition, photochemical has its possibilities. Cineinforme has interviewed four experts in this area. We start with Rodrigo Ruíz-Tarazona, CEO of Cinelab International who assures whomever said that Digital will simplify our lifes, was wrong. He started his career working as Marketing Manager for Kodak Professional Motion Picture Business Unit (Spain & Portugal) from March 1994 until Jan 1997 when he was appointed General Manager for Latin America and after that Worldwide Marketing Manager for Cinema Operations, based in Los Angeles He returned to Spain in 2000 as director of Spain & Portugal until 2004 and in June 2004 he became Technicolor General Manager until June 2008. Two years ago he became part of a laboratory in London called Cinelab as CEO. Cinelab is the last full service lab in London where neg dev, color grading, film recording and prints can be produced CINEINFORME: Can we say now that Cinelab International has a future? Rodrigo Ruiz-Tarazona: The London Laboratory has John Mahtani former CFO at Warner Bros EMEA, Adrian Bull, ex CTO at Deluxe for Europe and myself as y CEO and all of us are shareholders. David Webb ex Kodak Europe & Philip Crewe who comes from ASCENT Media make a very strong team with a great facility. In Europe many filmmakers still choose 35mm and 65 mm film even. The same goes for the USA CINEINFORME.: The difference in economic terms between a digital shooting and a film shooting is as much as they say, what percentage could be a Spanish film on an average budget? R.R.T.: If the project is shot on Neg and it goes through neg cutting proccess, the percentage could be 20 or 30% cheaper than shooting digital, but this also varies depending on what digital camera we compare it with & how many VFX there are in the project. In a medium budget film it depends on the shooting ratio (number of takes to 1) as film is a consumable linear product versus digital data which implies no consumable variable cost. Also a very important component to consider is the psychological factor that film creates during the shooting stage on the entire team creating tension to be more efficient and use time more effectively and better acting When shooting digitally there is a more relaxed ambience during the shooting and acting is less efficient and more repetitive losing creative value to storytelling. Many key directors tell me they prefer to shoot withnegative not only forthe quality aspect to it but it allows them to make fewer takes with better acting and technical performance and this is one of the reasons why negative is coming back. In other cases complexity raises when shooting digitally as theres a need for a technician defined as DIT (digital imaging technician) who supervises and ensures data back up after each take. The most expensive component when shooting a project regardless of the chosen medium (digital or film) is time (effectiveness or number of takes per day) as when shooting digitally, there is a dead time period after each take in order to check the data back up and its status to confirm that everything is ok to continue shooting. In certain ocasions it has happened to directors who shot allways with film and when they tried their first digitally shot project their experience wasnot as expected and have published openly that they will never shoot digitaly again due to limiting their creative capacity while shooting as everything slowed down waiting for the DIT to confirmthat the data was ok after each take. CINEINFORME.: When talking about larger budget films with heavy activity in extras and high value on the set (in front of the camera)? R.R.T.: In projects where the above the line (creative cost in front of the camera on the set) is high, there are multiple cameras shooting at the same time in order to reduce the shooting time. If for example, there are five cameras shooting on set and one of them has a drop or gets out of synch, that takes is NG (not good) as it does not synch with the other cameras which creates a lost take and the workflow on set does not flow which delays the entire project and increases cost exponentially. The ratio value per minute relative to the value on set is huge which is a high risk. Many projects are still shooting on film because the worflow actually flows and they are within timing according to plan (lower risk) take after take. Film could have a scratch or a hair but this can be solved in post through the DI proccess and the shooting progresses in time so the value here is in the shooting and not in post-production. Shooting 35mm does not bring risk slike drops or data transfer/workflow issues like digital does. The image is always captured ! Large budget production are obligated to have a completion bond insurance which requires a number of conditions and one of them sometimes is to shoot on film. CINEINFORME.: Does the perfect digital camera exist? R.R.T.: There are many digital cameras and as time goes by there are more/newer. What I can assure is that there is no perfect digital camera and there will never be! I say the perfect digital camera is called 35mm film because all digital cameras are trying to do what 35mm does. None of these achive it even if they are pretty close! Today there are 2K and 4K chips and even their pixels are different (smaller with less color saturation and bigger with more color saturation), there are different digital files generated by different cameras interpreting light, some of these compressed the data and some dont, there are as many cameras as manufacturers. Whomever said that Digital was going to simplify our lifes was wrong. It is an irony or paradox as Digital has made everything more complicated and create new formats. We have multiple examples, this industry has the shape of a triangle where in one tip you have TECHNOLOGY in another tip you have CREATIVITY OR TALENT and the last tip is BUSINESS. The producer sits in the middle and has to balance the three. The creative feels very attracted to TECHNOLOGY and BUSINESS as he/she needs both. When a creative person has access to a new small/compact digital camera with which he/she can execute his/her idea it attracts them strongly but still it is not a perfect camera. Each digital camera tries to cover a market segment demand but there is no camera that can cover all market segments. For example, a camera with a 2K chip like Alexa, may limit you when wanting to shoot anamorphic with Spheric lenses as you cut the chip and use much less resolution than 2k out of it and this is one of the key reasons why chips are becoming larger and larger The challenge when making larger chip becomes the amount of data that they generate which is unmanageble as there is a physical limitation in data transfer media which will obligate to use compression when transfering the data to a hard drive. It is comparable to a huge computer managing data which has been interpreted and compressed which means that there are many formats out there that have to be read in post-production systems later on in the process. This is a truly painful learning proccess for everyone, as americans say, the definition of a pioneer is THAT MAN WITH HIS FACE ON THE GROUND AND HIS BACK FULL OF ARROWS. When testing or trying new technology being a pioneer may not be such a good idea. In the case of CHE GUEVARA we did the first shooting with a RED ONE prototype camera at Technicolor when I was Managing Director in Spain and it was an tough experience, the camera was getting hot as it was a prototype. We had to work together with Assimilate who was the software manufacturer in order to convert the files that the camera generated in order to manage them at the best possible quality in post-production which had a huge cost increase. After this everything has evolved, what is happening? When a new technology comes around some creative people want to use it with everything they do. In TV at the begining when fading came up every director was fading in and out and the same happened when focussing in and out that created trend in many projects for a while. These are trends linked to the creative community as it comes out The digital cameras offering is so wide with so many options and as an example HOBBIT shot at 48 HFR (High Frame Rate) and also 3DS (3D Stereo) which created a new format. Each time there is a new format is great news for the post-production and laboratories industry as it generates a lot more work. Now James Cameron is shooting Avatar 2 at 72 HFR as 48 HFR was not enough and I have a couple of questions: How many K are enough K ? How many frames per second are enough frames ? Two great questions! The human eye has a capability to see 4K aproximately or less than 4K, the limit if 2K is perfect and very accepted A great DOP (Director of Photography) called Allen Daviau who shot with Spielberg ET, Color Purple, Indiana Jones and many other incredible projects, who I had the pleasure to meet and work with in Los Angeles, once asked me... Why do you think we shoot at 24 frames per second ? To which I answered that I understood that the human eyes captures between 15 or 16 frames per second and transfers these to the brain at that rate through our retina and also at Charlie Chaplin times films were shot at 15 fps and one coumd see skips or jumps in the motion captured, the image did not flow seamlessly so I assumed speed had to increase in order to avoid these skips/jumps. Allen replied to me the truth is that 24 frames is the sweet spot between what the creative is willing to accept and the producer is willing to pay That was a great response and in todays world the same thing is happening as technology is evolving so fast. The challenge is that from origination (shooting production process) to distribution and exhibition there is so much distance and disconnected pieces than when the creative mind chooses a new format such as 48 HFR and 3DS on top by the time it goes to distribution and therefore to exhibition in theatrical, it faces challenges to show the original content in its original format due to creative, technology and business reasons. The exhibitor needs to invest in order to upgrade hus/her digital systems to play this new format and the question is how many other films are going to come around in this new format in the next few months? If one looks at the Digital value chain, some of the chain links are not in contact with each other which creates a missalignment at the end user/consumer experience CINEINFORME.: Another value to consider when shooting with negative, is its longevity/preservation for long term purposes and future proof format, isnt it? R.R.T.: Yes, camera negative as well as Intermediate film are the only long term universal format to preserve images guaranteed and already proven. You know that you can read and recover those images in 50 years from now because you have a latent image, an image reflected and captured on silver which as a noble metal never oxidizes in time by being protected under a resine (the film emulsion) while a digital file is interpreted by a CCD in origin and created as a file format driven by a software which may not be around in a few years due to manufacturers evolution to the market demand (every 3 to 5 years there are new formats) as these manufacturers needs to sale new hardware and new software to stay alive and profitable. In the last 50 years we have had more than 50 digital formats, more than one per year. What does this mean? Basically that with former formats, there are two challenges in the industry (magnetic supported content & film supported content) that are in archives. If this archive is not digitized for future proof it will be lost, especially the content that is physically supported on magnetic formats. There is great opportunity to digitize & restore all this content and keep it for future proof. The same challenge is faced by the Major Hollywood studios who keep re-formating their premium catalog every five years as technology evolves so fast these days. CINEINFORME.: This contentre-formating is done just to get some of their classic titles to distribution again as the original master is on film ? R.R.T.: In fact there are Vaults (special warehouses with specific conditions for film preservation) specially equiped to hold film at specific temperature and humidity levels, anti-natural disasters, etc... Kodak has a large vault facility in Burbank where many key titles are preserved in different film formats from camera negatives to Interpositives and standard 35mm and 70mm prints. In the past 2 Interpositives were created per title (one as back up and the second one to create internegatives for international release print distribution to be moved to the different territories). Another preservation challenge is sound as it is very difficult to preserve except when you have a Standard print to read it back from. CINEINFORME.: So the future according to your explanation would split in two, in order to shoot high value content film will be used and on the other hand distribution and exhibition through different media to reach the market will be digital, is this how you see it ? R.R.T.: I strongly believe negative will exist as long as there are creative geniuses who demand it which is still the case but also the displays or outputs to view content are evolving these days towards more resolution (4K) and better color rendition & overall picture by different technologies such as blue laser for theatrical projection (industrial use) and OLED (Organic Light Emiting Diodes) for proffesional and consumer markets which will show the qualities that negative can capture and will help some projects to go back shooting on negative. The worlds current or up coming creative generations dont have much of a chance to try and work with film but if they could I am sure they would choose shooting with film. There are a lot of emotions (love/hate) when talking about film and digital and in some cases the creative community is split. There are film lovers like Spielberg who published he will allways shoot with film, Tarantino, Christopher Nolan and many more. If you have been lucky to have worked with film in your career you can realize that Digital capture is trying to look like film and sometimes is very close but it is not the same. One should not force a great artist who allways painted in oil painting to paint his next masterpiece in watercolors. They are different plastics for different creativity, artists and different content. Films future is in capture on negative and mastering as today most producers do not realize that they are shooting digitally and at the end of the proccess you have a hard disk with the entire project but in ten years will the project be on the hard disk still ? If you have not recorded a film print as a back up you may have nothing. As long as film proves to have more quality (which is the case today) it will be very difficult to dissapear completely as there is a part of the world who demands this quality standard. There is a statement I heard in Hollywood that says I never had a client who shot on film and asked to get THE DIGITAL LOOK for their project in post-production it is allways the other way around asking for THE FILM LOOK. CINEINFORME.: In distribution and Exhibition, Are we going to 100% Digitalization? R.R.T.: There will be a niche market for 35mm in theatres. Even in the US there are still many theatres covering this niche due to many factors like not being multiple screens, open weekends only and therefore they cannot get a return on their digital system investment. Today it represents 8% out of 45 thousand screens, which means nearly 4 thousand screens projecting 35mm prints in the US. These are very small theatres that open Friday, Saturday and Sunday only and are small private operations running in a very optimized way showing primarily independent content. This is one of the distribution channels for independent producers/distributors to deploy their content and will stay for a long time. Unfortunately in Spain this is not the case for this type of exhibitor which may imply that at the end of the year there may be very few theatres with 35mm projection. Even the national film archive is not requesting at least one print on 35mm format to preserve both image and sound which will have an impact in the long run. However, major studios at a worldwide level realized that only 30% of the screens were generating 80% of the sales. Some titles need to release at the same time (Day & Date) and these titles need all possible distribution capacity to position the title sales as a high benchmark for marketing purposes to sale the title later on in other windows (TV, PPV, VOD, etc...), it is basically a marketing strategy not a technology driven decision. CINEINFORME.: How many screens do you believe will not digitize at the worldwide level? R.R.T.: I cannot provide an exact number, nobody can, but if we look at the US which is one of the most digitized markets, there is a residual 8% market. The type of content that gets distribution in theatrical in the US is 90% major studios and 10% independent content. Also most titles are in English (not dubbed or subtitled) unlike Europe or other continents were the split between Major content and independent content is more 50/50 (Majors/Indies) so the residual market in Europe will probably be more like 20% of 35mm screens. CINEINFORME.: Should it not be the opposite? With Digital, all versions (dubbed or subtitled) will become less of a challenge, right ? R.R.T.: Versioning is not the issue or challenge, but digital is all about control by the Major Studios over the deploiment in the theatrical window specially in the most profitable screens which are usually multiplex chains. Smaller theatres cannot digitize due to their very low sale per title (one thousand dollars average) which does not pay for the cost of the print (whetger film or digital VPF) unless you move it from one theatre to another which you can do with a 35mm print at no additional cost but not with a Digital clone (DCP) as there is a VPF charge everytime you play at a different theatre. CINEINFORME.: Are we getting close to the end of theatres as we knew them? R.R.T.: Not really, I believe that what is changing in reality is the business model for distributors/exhibitors. In the future, it may be that exhibitors may have to pay a fixed fee in order to have access to a 35mm print instead of a variable fee. CINEINFORME.: In this new business model, will 35mm prints have a payback? R.R.T.: Yes it will and it does already as the life of 35mm is longer rotating from screen to screen without having to pay a VPF as DCP clones do (A fee called Virtual Print Fee is paid by every location that plays it) so at the end 35mm has a better return for the distributor. These are completely different business models. CINEINFORME.: Are we therefore facing a new era in which distribution and exhibition are going to split in two? R.R.T.: Distributors are going to be larger and more powerful and the same will go for exhibitors (chains). There will be two types of distributors & exhibitors (large and small) but nothing in between like most companies in the new economy we live in. CINEINFORME.: Are the small exhibitors going to survive by playing independent content and rotating it longer periods? R.R.T.: They can operate for sure as a niche within distribution. What would be the percentage, Im not sure, but if in the US its8%, in Europe it should be at least 16% of the total number of screens. CINEINFORME.: There is a theory that assures that the future does not go towards 4K when talking about Digital but instead HDR (High Dynamic Range) which is color rendition/definition and its form will be a laser sourced based projection system, what do you think? R.R.T.: Laser projection systems exist for a long time now, Kodak used to have a patent for a Blu laser and in 1999 it was a confidential project and the idea was to raise the bar (the quality bar). If projection (output) quality raises, we will be able to see what a negative can capture in terms of quality (that was the strategic concept). Kodak has allways had quality raising strategies and blue laser was one of the latest technologies we were working on at the time. As a new technology it changes the current business model by having many positive improvements but higher costs in Capital expenditure (investment) as it usually happens such as lower maintenance cost, a better quality image, less heat generation in the projection booth, no lamp consumption/replacement cost and less power consumption in both projection system and less air conditioning. CINEINFORME.: To wrap up, lets talk about other uses of film camera negative, as a medium to archive large amount of data (digital data), in other words, black and white dots supported (recorded) on a negative film. R.R.T.: We had a project like this at Kodak called DOTS, which stands for Digital Optical Tape System, which was a way to store data on film as a long term massive data holder by recording dots on negative film. The challenge was that no manufacturer would produce the system to record and play back as the potential market for such player/recorder would be too small in terms of units and therefore its price would be too high in the market which made it unviable. CINEINFORME.: What is Cinevator? R.R.T.: Cinevator is a solution to many challenges. It is a very versatile equipment that allows prints to be produced from high quality digital files such as DCP, DPX, TIFF, etc... But it also can record Internegatives or data. Cinevation (now PIQL) its manufacturer, has launched to the market the Archivator which is meant to archive for future preservation. CINEINFORME.: How many Cinevator are there in the world now ? R.R.T.: Thrfe are around 15 units and the last one has been recently installed and activated at Cinelab Romania providing service for all EU customers.
Posted on: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 18:51:04 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015