I respect your opinion that film is dead, but my main issue with that, is that the archiving process is proven to be better on film than in digital. The best in digital at the moment is LTO tape, and that will only stay for 20 years. If you ever went to a Cinematheque, you will see that most of the films there are kept in film, even digital ones. When Kodak filed for bankrupcy, my first thought was "Fuck, what about the archiving films?". Digital storage companies have great R&D teams that probably are looking for a reliable form of archiving, but that's not profitable for them. Even if they do find a way of better archiving, will they make it a product? They are probably focusing on speed and sizes, as 4K video reaches the market, and not long life storage. And as digital technology improves, what about formats? As you probably know, there are several of codecs and formats being used for films around the world right now. When I went to my local Cinematheque, they still had professional video TV decks from the 80s. Yes, the 80s. And their main issue was that the company that made those decks couldn't provide repair pieces for them because they didn't have the means to produce them. So, they have hundreds of tapes waiting to be archived in other formats because technology went on and got better.
Yes, digital is "cheaper" and more "democratic" (democratic and cheaper from certains points of view), but if we stop funding the only company in the world that still makes THE reliable medium to store films, we should probably stop funding all those Cinematheques all together because history is useless.
Flavio Isawa got a reaction from Patrick in Kodak celluloid film saved by studios - oh and by the way - what's the point?