A Sea Change for the Motion Picture Industry

[eddym]

Sounds to me like we have a new troll.

 

[Goza]

Goaz

What has this really got to do with what this site is about.

APUG is about sharing information about silver & other precious metal based photography. I't not about Digital, it's certainly not about Kodak's balance sheet.

When are you going to post anything relevant.

Ian

Ian, before you post on a thread you should try reading the thread first.

I don't understand your concern with posts...

 

[Goza]

Thanks guys;

It is offensive.

I am wrong as often as any human being.

I confused PhotoNet with Photo.Net (and was not the only person to do so here), and I was mislead by Kodak's data. At least I read all of the reports and found the errors in the Kodak 2006 and 2007 reports, but Goza apparently did not! I also reported both sets of data to be honest about the situation.

But to be accused of making it up or otherwise faking it is not acceptable.

All of the data above in my posts are cut and pastes from Kodak reports that I have read, or are direct references to the page numbers with excerpts.

The production figures are my estimates from "sources" here in Rochester and are mine alone. They may be in error, but they are not that far off.

PE

Ron,

well, you are wrong again.

and you are offensive. you did not cut and paste anything from any source.

My pointing out of your information is "not acceptable"

Why? What makes you so special that you can just post anything you want on the internet with complete disregard for the truth???

Your posts don't even make sense. You are just blurting stuff out at will.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Ron,

well, you are wrong again.

and you are offensive. you did not cut and paste anything from any source.

My pointing out of your information is "not acceptable"

Why? What makes you so special that you can just post anything you want on the internet with complete disregard for the truth???

Your posts don't even make sense. You are just blurting stuff out at will.

This post is an outright LIE!

PE

 

[bill williams]

Gee, can't someone pull the plug on Goza so he will be Gone Za? Don't let this go on.

 

[Uhner]

Ron,

well, you are wrong again.

and you are offensive. you did not cut and paste anything from any source.

My pointing out of your information is "not acceptable"

Why? What makes you so special that you can just post anything you want on the internet with complete disregard for the truth???

Your posts don't even make sense. You are just blurting stuff out at will.

Well, this post is indeed an outright lie.

 

[Ray Rogers]

itz recess time!

1.
... to just post out of your ass.

2.
It is completely irresponsible and malicious.

3.
I have no tolerance for people putting wrong information on the web without taking a minute to research and gather.

4.
I mean isn't that the point of this site?

5.
Or all we all here to waste time and just talk about abunch stuff we know nothing about?

Hummm...

1.
What is it with you and people's butt?
Personally, I think they stinks.

2. To post misinformation knowingly certainly is irresponsible and malicious.
Do you think and have any evidence that PE secretly agreed with you?

3.
You know, I know a young Japanese man who shares your disposition (and distemper!), on this very subject. Perhaps you two should hook up and leave the rest of us behind in the dust.

4.
I do not think the point of this site is to be a repository of cold hard facts.
Facts are an admirable result but if facts are all you are after, why have you come here? Arn't there any better sources? The Japanese guy would tell you, if you haven't checked the orginal source then you probably haven't got it right. Are you the original source? Do you consider PE an original source?

APUG is not a scientific peer reviewed journal... it's just a bunch of analogers getting together to talk about photography. If you want perfection, won't you be able to obtain that best from yourself rather than from other people?

Perhaps you might follow the example the Japanese guy set... make your own wiki site, but don't let anyone else edit or post, since they either don't know what they are talking about or they'll surely be intent on destroying your little book of knowledge... oh, you might keep the possibility open for "approved" editors, but hey, why risk a good thing?

If you want something done right then do it yourself.

Isn't that what people say?

There must be a reason.

5.
Well, in large part, yes, I think so!
Apug may be educational, but it is not a school.

an dats allum gonna say...
(itz recess time and I yam outta here!!)

Good luck Goza. I hope you find what it is you are looking for.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, this post is indeed an outright lie.

Thank you and thank Ray.

I am glad you appear to have read the articles in question. Neither of us is right until we can clarify the discrepancies in the Kodak reports.

PE

 

[wilsonneal]

For the most part this is a civil forum, Goza. Dunno where you've been spending time, but we tend to give people some latitude here. PE is a very well-respected member with tons of valuable information who seems personally committed to trying to protect analog photography, so your attacks are just disrespectful.

My original post wasn't designed to be a 'sky is falling' alert, but rather a link to an article I found interesting. Whether the publication is a fan-boy mag as another poster claimed is irrelevant. Chances are good that the writer of the piece is a freelancer, not necessarily the voice of the magazine. It was just an interesting article. I don't claim it as factual, just interesting. If you, or others, don't find it interesting, to write a screed about the fact that one doesn't find it relevant is just a waste of bandwidth. Everyone's entitled to opinions but ranting about someone posting a simple link is juvenile.

Have a nice day.
Neal

 

[Photo Engineer]

Neal;

Many thanks for your vote of confidence. I will try as best I can to preserve this medium. If I have erred above, please, anyone point it out, but if you agree, then point that out. I wish to keep my integrity intact so that I can pass on an analog heritage with verity and confidence.

Thanks.

PE

 

[phenix]

Goza, Goza, Goza, I think you transgressed a line you never should on APUG: building an appearance of fact-based information, you dissimulated (maybe planned) a personal attack against another member. You used one person’s minor error, to mount a tragedy in which only you was interested, and had something to win (or at least this seems to be your thoughts). You manipulated this person (although an old subscriber and an important contributor, despite some nostalgia excesses), you manipulated him with feelings of guilt and fears, and engaged a fight against him, instead of a constructive discussion. This is a perverse behavior, Goza. And this is what APUG should not tolerate: You, babe.

 

[nsouto]

Articles like that one have been a dollar a dozen since Red came out.
Nothing new there, move along.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Phenix;

Thanks. I'll try to be less nostalgic in the future!

Actually, this "abuse" continued with 9 e-mail notes last night, six of which I tried to answer politely and without malice. I finally gave up. As you point out, he was not interested in anything but the abuse and refused to discuss the issue on any reasonable level.

As is APUG policy, I will not discuss the e-mail content further, just to say that as far as I am concerned the matter is closed with me. And, if anyone finds errors in my posts of the reports, I apologize. I tried to cut and paste the correct information and deal with it properly here when I found conflicts in on-line Kodak information.

PE

 

[railwayman3]

PE -

Pleased to know that all is sorted, and hopefully our troll visitation is over. :rolleyes:

And nostalgia is fine by me! I greatly enjoy all your posts (and those of the other experts) and I can genuinely say that discovering APUG has rekindled my interest in good photography.

The digital camera has now been relegated to being a "notebook" and for quick easy prints of the kids, and my Pentax gear has been dusted off for some careful and leisurely Kodachrome and B&W shooting.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, over the last 20 minutes, I have been re-reading the 2006 and 2007 Kodak annual reports and I find that the figures for the prevous years shown in the 2007 report have been seriously changed regarding their values in the 2006 report. This includes income and research expenditures for previous years as well.

IDK why this should be unless there are ammendments to taxes or changes in reporting, but it is no wonder why anyone attempting to post data from an annual report has trouble. About the only thing clear from these reports is that Kodak overall sales appear to have dropped by as much as 50% over 10 years, and that their income from sales has dropped by as much or more due to ongoing costs due to layoffs and acqusitions.

It is also clear that digital caught up or is catching up to analog (depending on which report you read) or has passed it. The local reports say that they are on a par with each other, but that depends on which quarter they are reporting. This may reflect the seasonal changes if you look at quarters. Kodak refers to this in the report.

The reports also agree that analog is the cash cow as I reported here earlier. That remains clear in all reports, but the amount changes. It is going down. Most profit is going into digital R&D, but as we have seen, some still goes into Analog product R&D.

Those reports, side-by-side, make interesting reading.

PE

 

[Nigel]

Well, over the last 20 minutes, I have been re-reading the 2006 and 2007 Kodak annual reports and I find that the figures for the prevous years shown in the 2007 report have been seriously changed regarding their values in the 2006 report. This includes income and research expenditures for previous years as well.

IDK why this should be unless there are ammendments to taxes or changes in reporting, but it is no wonder why anyone attempting to post data from an annual report has trouble. About the only thing clear from these reports is that Kodak overall sales appear to have dropped by as much as 50% over 10 years, and that their income from sales has dropped by as much or more due to ongoing costs due to layoffs and acqusitions.

It is also clear that digital caught up or is catching up to analog (depending on which report you read) or has passed it. The local reports say that they are on a par with each other, but that depends on which quarter they are reporting. This may reflect the seasonal changes if you look at quarters. Kodak refers to this in the report.

The reports also agree that analog is the cash cow as I reported here earlier. That remains clear in all reports, but the amount changes. It is going down. Most profit is going into digital R&D, but as we have seen, some still goes into Analog product R&D.

Those reports, side-by-side, make interesting reading.

PE

Sorry I am late to the party here. Each quarter, I try to look through the EK financials. I have missed the last couple, but what you have said so far is true.

Film (and ancillary products such as chemistry) is very much the cash cow. It is the most profitable segment of the business. To date, digital has not shown a meaningful profit. In fact, although I haven't done the numbers on it, I would hazard a guess that it has not yet paid back the R&D costs.

With respect to the changes year to year in previous results, this is the result of accounting changes. Any 2007 numbers reported side by side with 2008 numbers may be different from those shown in the 2007 reports. This is because, as an investor, you are interested in how the business is operating compared to previous years. So, the previous years results will be presented using the same set of rules as the current year. As you may know, accouting rules change year to year. As well,items may be classified differntly in different years. For example, in previous years, black and white papaer was reported as part of the traditional business. But with the operations discontinued, it now gets classified as discontinued operations. Thus, the 2007 results reported on the 2008 reports may not match the 2007 reports.

So, if you are looking at trends to 2007, use the 2007 report. If you want trends to 2008, use the 2008 report.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Nigel;

Of course, I understand what happens, but I don't know the rule changes. Apparently my "adversary" did not believe this was taking place at all. In addition, the postings here in Rochester give the rounded numbers and so 2.1B and 1.7B may be reported as "virtually identical income" from the 2 divisions by the TV and newspapers.

Thanks for the clarification. Maybe that will help Goza become a believer.

Oh, I was surprised at the size of the changes and the inversion of the amounts.

PE

 

[Kino]

Looks like my power being out for 7 days might not have been a bad thing after all...

What a weird thread this has been.

 

[gr82bart]

Goza WTF? You are here via 20 something posts and of that about 75% of them are some of most bizarre and frankly rude posts I've seen here. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and maybe it's a cultural thing. Look, who cares if Ron is right or wrong about his Kodak financial/sales figures to x significant digits. It's minusha. We all know know what he means. Directionally he's correct.

Seriously, what the heck was this thread about again? I don't want to start reading again from the begining.

Regards, Art.

 

[Aurum]

I think its about articles saying that the motion picture industry is considering digital distribution and projection.

There was then a discussion about wether or not the Digital technology is up to standard yet (Standard APUG stuff) , then it shot off the rails with Gonzo being IMO being a pedantic jerk to Ron

That a good summary chaps and chapettes?

 

[JBrunner]

I think its about articles saying that the motion picture industry is considering digital distribution and projection.

There was then a discussion about wether or not the Digital technology is up to standard yet (Standard APUG stuff) , then it shot off the rails with Gonzo being IMO being a pedantic jerk to Ron

That a good summary chaps and chapettes?

Pretty good, but the OP was actually about the over hyped RED camera system.

 

[Aurum]

I'd forgotten about that bit!

 

[aldevo]

If a shift from film to DV happens it will happen because the financiers of motion pictures and cinemas want to cut costs, not because of real or perceived advantages in picture quality delivered by DV.

If quality were what mattered, studios would still be using TechniColor.

 

[JBrunner]

If a shift from film to DV happens it will happen because the financiers of motion pictures and cinemas want to cut costs, not because of real or perceived advantages in picture quality delivered by DV.

If quality were what mattered, studios would still be using TechniColor.

Theater chains may want to cut out distributers and prints and could over time realize a meaningful cost benefit, but in the production of a normal theatrical motion picture DV offers little cost advantage to the normal budget, coupled with severe creative restrictions. Film stock and processing cost is miniscule compared to the time consuming overly complicated lighting and camera logistics DV workflow requires. In cinema production, or even made for TV, it's time that costs the money, not film. On the last SciFi TV movie I worked on, film was less than 1% of the budget.

 

[ajuk]

Why would the lighting be any different?