Source?

Jeez. However unlikely as I think it is, I sure hope this doesn't become an industry standard. Not a fan of the look. But more importantly not looking forward to twice the render time for a second of vfx work.

am dead serious, most of the theatres will digitize. there is a projector assistance program offered to all cinemas to phase out all 35mm projectors within the next 2 years coupled with digitizing program to help defray cost for K2 and K4. the standard is 48p.

if you notice the trend in the film now is go beyond 2 hours.40 percent of the films are that long now,the 90 minute standard length will be the thing of the past.Why? because audiences prefer the long film now so the visual preferences of audiences are changing.plus the occupancy rates of the cinemas are low and the only way to keep them in the malls or cinemas since the aircons and heaters are on anyway is to stretch their time inside.

this is the real thing and not just for 3D..........

@blues Don't be so fast. The 99% can't catch up that fast :)

@L1N3ARX There was an article in Variety a few months ago stating the majority of Hollywood features are not shot on digital.

I only know what the Variety article reported, and they said digital has supplanted film for acquisition. Pretty credible source by most people's standard in that it's the primary Hollywood trade journal.

@blues - once more, your source?

@blues your mouth is still flapping, but you've still not answered. Source?

@Athiril The human eye ceases to distinguish individual frames after 14fps. Try it yourself. 18fps was plenty for amateur filmmakers. 24fps was almost overkill. The only way 24fps flickers is when a subject moves fast over a big screen when viewed up close. Faster frame rates are better for games and will be better for fast motion movies, too.

@Athiril

Film is double flashed at the cinema

Actually, most film projectors are triple-bladed; hence the flicker rate is 72 flicks per second. You see each frame of a 24fps film interrupted by the blades three times in a row.

So far, persistence of film as acquision format is reflected in the top-grossing movies of 2011 (Animation not counted)...

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 -35 mm (Kodak Vision2 200T 5217, Vision2 500T 5218)

Transformers: Dark of the Moon Worldwide Gross: $1.1 billion Film negative format (mm/video inches) 35 mm (Kodak)

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (Disney Digital 3D™) -Redcode Mysterium-X RAW

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1-35 mm (Kodak Vision3 250D 5207, Vision3 500T 5219)

Fast & Furious 5 - Film negative format: 35 mm

The Hangover Part II - 35 mm (Kodak Vision3 500T 5219)

Rise of the Planet of the Apes - 35 mm (Kodak Vision3 250D 5207, Vision3 500T 5219)

Thor - 35 mm (Kodak Vision2 50D 5201, Vision3 250D 5207, Vision3 500T 5219)

Captain America: The First Avenger: 35 mm (Kodak Vision2 200T 5217, Vision3 500T 5219)

I'd be surprised if more than 1 in 100 films are shot on film. But so far most of the best ones are!

Yes I am afraid you are right....it's a digital world now

@sohus incorrect, film is the profitable part of Kodak, their digital cameras were all discontinued, and printing is only being hold onto because Antonio Perez is a printing guy from HP obsessed with it and won't let it go, and suspicions are losses in that area were shifted into other unprofitable areas.

Kodak continues to make film because it is profitable, it's not profitable enough to support a much larger part of the company failing hard (everything else bar film), it is only profitable enough to support it's own division, the rest of the bloat of Kodak was much bigger than the film division. Every other part of Kodak bar film has been dragging Kodak into a hole.

Even without knowing, simple logic alone should tell you the "film is dead" argument is a tired old dead-horse flogging exercise that is simply, quite stupid. If film is apparently dead with very little being bought and used, then it logically is a tiny part of the company, therefore cannot possibly be the cause of Kodak's financial troubles, if on the other hand it's profitable (and therefore demand to keep it in production) whether or not it's small or large part of the company, it still cannot be contributing to Kodak's financial troubles, and can only be lessening their troubles as a profitable division.

Given that Kodak has financial troubles and discontinued other stuff bar film, the logical conclusion is while profitable, there is significantly much more loss going on from the rest of the company minus film than profit gained from the film division.

Film could not support the ailing dead digital technology, as far as Kodak goes, digital is what is dead, and is completely discontinued.

Chemistry is made by Champion, not Kodak, so chemistry doesn't even come under Kodak. Look at Agfa, Agfa is "gone", yet Agfa actually continue to make their film for still use, and is still used today.

Film is not dead, and is going to be around for a long time, the "film is dead" championeers have been at it for a very long time now, and have continuously been wrong.

5201 also recently received an update into 5203, so that 50D joins Vision3 line up. They even started bringing out ECN-2 colour neg into 8mm format recently since people are getting it scanned rather than projecting E-6 8mm. I could never even have imagined even in god damn 8mm there are enough people apparently using it to justify new film brought out and packaged for that format for it in 2011.

Even stills have new stuff brought out, originally with Ektar, then Portra 400, then Portra 160, I never used Kodak for colour neg before these films, now I do instead of using Fuji for colour neg.

The people who come in an assess what needs to be changed basically cut their E-6 line in stills format, (chemistry for it is doing well as E-6 is in enough demand), as every slide shooter is obsessed with Fujichrome, and Kodak's share market in that respect vs Fujifilm has been absolutely terrible.

@sohus The "Film Is Dead!!1111!1" ship has already sailed without you several years ago, yet it (film) remains much to the dismay of some people who for some reason like to see something destroyed and buried in a twist of reverse-progress.

@Roberto 18 fps isn't enough, 24 fps isn't enough. Trickery is used to play 24 fps as motion rather than individual pictures, 24 fps played as 24 fps appears as individual images and has motion artefacts.