A Sea Change for the Motion Picture Industry

[Photo Engineer]

GG;

Up until about 2 years ago, PN was privately held. They were sold at that time to a large company, AFAIK not related to Kodak. This was discussed extensively here on APUG. Up until recently, I was a beta tester for the new PN "look" and nothing in the information I was given at the time indicated a Kodak connection other than as an advertizer.

Do a search and you will find the information on the sale here on APUG.

PE

 

[Ian Grant]

Greenspun only sold PhotoNet less than a year ago.

So I think you're thinking of another company.

Ian

 

[Goza]

Greenspun only sold PhotoNet less than a year ago.

So I think you're thinking of another company.

Ian

Greenspun's venture was "photo.net" NOT "PhotoNet". Kodak purchased "PhotoNet" back in 1998. Why in heavens would Kodak purchase Photo.Net?

This subject matter is beyond the petty point I was trying to make and I don't really have much interest in PhotoNet, Photo.net, Kodak, or Kodak.anything. Here is the only article I found from 10 years ago with out much searching.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/798316.stm

 

[Goza]

GG;

Up until about 2 years ago, PN was privately held. They were sold at that time to a large company, AFAIK not related to Kodak. This was discussed extensively here on APUG. Up until recently, I was a beta tester for the new PN "look" and nothing in the information I was given at the time indicated a Kodak connection other than as an advertizer.

Do a search and you will find the information on the sale here on APUG.

PE

PE,

Kodak purchased Photonet 10 years ago.

Photonet was an online digital system
Photo.net is a silly blog

 

[Photo Engineer]

There is Photonet on the internet which is the Cal Tech photo archive. There is Photo.net which is what we thought you were referring to. So, do you have a URL? Oh, there are also photo net refereces to archives in the Netherlands and Russia.

Kodak has a Kodak PhotoNet online picture service at http://www.kodak.com/US/en/consumer/printService/ but then there is also http://www.aboutus.org/PhotoNet.com .

Maybe you mean this: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9502E2D6113BF935A25756C0A9669C8B63

To me, Picturevision is the key word here as Kodak PhotoNet was a Kodak "product" hosted on the Picturevision site. Maybe that clarifies it for you. Kodak essentially bought the server of their service rather than having it hosted by another company. At least that is my understanding.

PE

 

[Goza]

PE,

this is really getting tedious. Maybe this will clarify it for you. 1n 1998 Kodak acquired PhotoNet from PictureVision, Inc. out of Virginia, with a 51% stake in PictureVision, Inc. All of this was done for an undisclosed amout, but it was probably close to $100 Million.

The key word here is 1998

Here is Kodak's Annual Report from 1998. Search for the word "PhotoNet" or "PictureVision"

http://www.getfilings.com/o0000031235-99-000001.html

 

[Goza]

There is Photonet on the internet which is the Cal Tech photo archive. There is Photo.net which is what we thought you were referring to. So, do you have a URL? Oh, there are also photo net refereces to archives in the Netherlands and Russia.

Kodak has a Kodak PhotoNet online picture service at http://www.kodak.com/US/en/consumer/printService/ but then there is also http://www.aboutus.org/PhotoNet.com .

Maybe you mean this: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9502E2D6113BF935A25756C0A9669C8B63

To me, Picturevision is the key word here as Kodak PhotoNet was a Kodak "product" hosted on the Picturevision site. Maybe that clarifies it for you. Kodak essentially bought the server of their service rather than having it hosted by another company. At least that is my understanding.

PE

PE,

this is really getting tedious. Maybe this will clarify it for you. 1n 1998 Kodak acquired PhotoNet from PictureVision, Inc. out of Virginia, with a 51% stake in PictureVision, Inc. All of this was done for an undisclosed amout, but it was probably close to $100 Million.

The key word here is 1998

Here is Kodak's Annual Report from 1998. Search for the word "PhotoNet" or "PictureVision"

http://www.getfilings.com/o0000031235-99-000001.html

 

[Goza]

Kodak acquired Photo Net? WOW. News to me unless the real owner of the company that bought PN is Kodak.

Since nearly 50% of Kodak's income is from analog motion picture, they are content at the present time to hold their lead in the field. They are doing massive research into digital MP, but see it as a long term issue. The Red One uses a Kodak sensor. They have also just invented a new type of sensor.

PE

PE,
Where did you get "50% of Kodak's income is from analog motion picture"? I would love to see a reference. That is the most absurd statistic I've ever seen. Less than 10% is more accurate.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Getting empatic arent you?

Ummm, Kodak's Picture Network, which co-existed with, and I believe predated PhotoNet, as explained in the article, were merged into one single system on the Picture Vision server. As of now, Kodak offers their own service having bought the whole thing rather than have the other company handle the Kodak web site. You get there directly via the URL that I gave above. Or you can go here: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/publications/tib5143.jhtml

The only confusion was between photo.net and photonet, which confused a number of us, not just me as you may note. PhotoNet remains a trademark of PictureVision of which Kodak also owns a portion according to some documents but thre are other reports such as this:

"The Eastman Kodak Company, the world's largest photography company, bought the remainder of the closely held PictureVision Inc. for $90 million to strengthen its Internet-based photography business. The company owned 51 percent of PictureVision, based in Dulles, Va., which is the host of the Kodak PhotoNet and the America Online ''You've Got Pictures'' Web sites. The company bought a majority stake in PictureVision in March 1998. Shares of Kodak, based in Rochester, rose $1.125, to $57.25, on the New York Stock Exchange. "

And so PictureVision is now a part of Kodak and apparently the trademark is now Kodak's. Reports differ depending on which web site you visit.

The report above is newer than the 1998 report you cite!

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

PE,
Where did you get "50% of Kodak's income is from analog motion picture"? I would love to see a reference. That is the most absurd statistic I've ever seen. Less than 10% is more accurate.

In Kodak's last annual report, it was stated that $1B came from analog sales and $1B came from digital sales (I'm rounding) and that was down from about $20B in the 90s. Of that $1B, most all of it was motion picture stock of one sort or another (Vision film or Print film).

PE

 

[Goza]

In Kodak's last annual report, it was stated that $1B came from analog sales and $1B came from digital sales (I'm rounding) and that was down from about $20B in the 90s. Of that $1B, most all of it was motion picture stock of one sort or another (Vision film or Print film).

PE

PE,

You are a source for bad information and posting out of your ass.

 

[Goza]

Getting empatic arent you?

Ummm, Kodak's Picture Network, which co-existed with, and I believe predated PhotoNet, as explained in the article, were merged into one single system on the Picture Vision server. As of now, Kodak offers their own service having bought the whole thing rather than have the other company handle the Kodak web site. You get there directly via the URL that I gave above. Or you can go here: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/publications/tib5143.jhtml

The only confusion was between photo.net and photonet, which confused a number of us, not just me as you may note. PhotoNet remains a trademark of PictureVision of which Kodak also owns a portion according to some documents but thre are other reports such as this:

"The Eastman Kodak Company, the world's largest photography company, bought the remainder of the closely held PictureVision Inc. for $90 million to strengthen its Internet-based photography business. The company owned 51 percent of PictureVision, based in Dulles, Va., which is the host of the Kodak PhotoNet and the America Online ''You've Got Pictures'' Web sites. The company bought a majority stake in PictureVision in March 1998. Shares of Kodak, based in Rochester, rose $1.125, to $57.25, on the New York Stock Exchange. "

And so PictureVision is now a part of Kodak and apparently the trademark is now Kodak's. Reports differ depending on which web site you visit.

The report above is newer than the 1998 report you cite!

PE

PE,

Seems quite irrelevent.

I'm not sure what the point of your post is...

Here is the detailed information on the PhotoNet acquisition of 1998 you asked for from Kodak's 1998 Annual Report.

Seems like you just mistook PhotoNet for Photo.Net. Which is completely acceptable.

 

[railwayman3]

^^^Goza

If you disagree with PE, please cite your own references, don't just dismiss the question in this totally unproductive way as posting out of your ass.

Please either play nicely or argue in private.

 

[Goza]

In Kodak's last annual report, it was stated that $1B came from analog sales and $1B came from digital sales (I'm rounding) and that was down from about $20B in the 90s. Of that $1B, most all of it was motion picture stock of one sort or another (Vision film or Print film).

PE

Kodak only pulls in $2 Billion a year??

 

[Goza]

^^^Goza

If you disagree with PE, please cite your own references, don't just dismiss the question in this totally unproductive way as posting out of your ass.

Please either play nicely or argue in private.

how about we not post bad information...

 

[Goza]

In Kodak's last annual report, it was stated that $1B came from analog sales and $1B came from digital sales (I'm rounding) and that was down from about $20B in the 90s. Of that $1B, most all of it was motion picture stock of one sort or another (Vision film or Print film).

PE

PE,

I'm starting to see how this site works. You post wrong, bad information and then we have to correct you. No thanks.

But here is Kodak's 2007 Annual Report. Kodak pulls in $2 Billion from analog film (motion, analog, and whatever else), They pull in $4.6 Billion from digital crap.

They pull $10.3 Billion total.

http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acr...port07/2007_Kodak_AR_10K_2008Proxy_wCover.pdf

You are just posting innacurate, bad information.

 

[Goza]

^^^Goza

If you disagree with PE, please cite your own references, don't just dismiss the question in this totally unproductive way as posting out of your ass.

Please either play nicely or argue in private.

there it is. you guys post all the crap and nonsense you want. we'll correct it. you should take a little more responsibilty in your posts

http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acr...port07/2007_Kodak_AR_10K_2008Proxy_wCover.pdf

 

[Ray Rogers]

George's philosophy?

Goza,

You are correct. We all need to be more responsible with the accuracy of our data. PE makes mistakes now and then, I have caught them myself on occassion; some I try to correct some I don't.

But Please try to give the guy a little slack... in his defence I can only say look at his 9000 plus posts and then look at your 22 (?) when you have made that much of a contribution, perhaps such an aggressive tone MIGHT be acceptable, but at this point, it was a rather rude way to say a rather simple and basic truth... We need to get our facts straight before we start moving our fingers.

I am not the least bit interseted in the conversation in general as it makes me sick that with all that money Kodak turned their back on us, preferring to keep their eye on vulgar quantities of money instead. Hey, I am so poor it would make your hair stand on end!

Right in line with old George's philosophy.

Anyway the point I want to make is that I don't know if Ron was right or wrong here, and although you make a valid point, I would prefer it if we could all just stick to the facts.

If someone sees an error in a post point it out with immediate referance to the exact source of the correct data.

I have never known PE to knowingly post anything incorrect based on intentional malice. He may have his agendas, but bad information per se is not one of them.
IMHO.

Ray Rogers

 

[Photo Engineer]

Here is my reference:

http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en/corp/annualReport06/annualReport06.pdf

Please note that there is a difference between sales and earnings. One is before profits and one is after profits.

Analog and digital reached parity in the 2006-2007 time frame with digital pulling ahead sometimes and analog other times during the year as reported in the various quarters. Analog is the cash cow that is being used to support Digital R&D at the present time.

The coating plants in Rochester, Colorado, Harrow and Chalon are operating at full capacity making analog products for motion picture, printing and consumer products. All China coating operations are now done here as is Analog R&D. Colorado is operating under lease from the new owners of the Health Sciences division. It only produces wide Endura paper. All other paper production is at Harrow.


Here are the FY 2006-2007 figures in millions from pages 12-13 of the above reference:

"Sales from continuing operations of the CDG segment for 2006, 2005 and 2004 were (in millions) $2,920, $3,215 and $2,366, respectively." (DIGITAL)

"Sales from continuing operations of the FPG segment for 2006, 2005 and 2004 were (in millions) $4,156, $5,325 and $7,051, respectively." (ANALOG)

"GOZA: But here is Kodak's 2007 Annual Report. Kodak pulls in $2 Billion from analog film (motion, analog, and whatever else), They pull in $4.6 Billion from digital crap."

Oh, dear, looks like you have things backwards in that statement! My quote is from the report.

The figures I have were from 2007-2008 from the local press and TV and are more recent. But, from the above, it looks like digital and analog are close with analog leading a tad.

Now lets see.... I said they were about equal or equal and you said motion picture was only about 10% of Digital sales, right?

"GOZA: Where did you get "50% of Kodak's income is from analog motion picture"? I would love to see a reference. That is the most absurd statistic I've ever seen. Less than 10% is more accurate."

I did not say that 50% was motion picture, but now that you mention it, here is my estimate....

MP Camera and print stock ~50% - 60%
Consumer and professional color C41 products ~20% (Includes Endura paper)
E6 and Kodachrome ~10%
B&W ~10%

Any error in my figures would increase C41 products due to Endura production and B&W production. That is where my figures are most lacking. I can tell you for a certain fact though that motion picture is the biggest single product at Kodak and the biggest profit maker!

PE

 

[Goza]

Here is my reference:

http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en/corp/annualReport06/annualReport06.pdf

Please note that there is a difference between sales and earnings. One is before profits and one is after profits.

Analog and digital reached parity in the 2006-2007 time frame with digital pulling ahead sometimes and analog other times during the year as reported in the various quarters. Analog is the cash cow that is being used to support Digital R&D at the present time.

The coating plants in Rochester, Colorado, Harrow and Chalon are operating at full capacity making analog products for motion picture, printing and consumer products. All China coating operations are now done here as is Analog R&D. Colorado is operating under lease from the new owners of the Health Sciences division. It only produces wide Endura paper. All other paper production is at Harrow.


Here are the FY 2006-2007 figures in millions from pages 12-13 of the above reference:

"Sales from continuing operations of the CDG segment for 2006, 2005 and 2004 were (in millions) $2,920, $3,215 and $2,366, respectively." (DIGITAL)

"Sales from continuing operations of the FPG segment for 2006, 2005 and 2004 were (in millions) $4,156, $5,325 and $7,051, respectively." (ANALOG)

"GOZA: But here is Kodak's 2007 Annual Report. Kodak pulls in $2 Billion from analog film (motion, analog, and whatever else), They pull in $4.6 Billion from digital crap."

Oh, dear, looks like you have things backwards in that statement! My quote is from the report.

The figures I have were from 2007-2008 from the local press and TV and are more recent. But, from the above, it looks like digital and analog are close with analog leading a tad.

Now lets see.... I said they were about equal or equal and you said motion picture was only about 10% of Digital sales, right?

"GOZA: Where did you get "50% of Kodak's income is from analog motion picture"? I would love to see a reference. That is the most absurd statistic I've ever seen. Less than 10% is more accurate."

I did not say that 50% was motion picture, but now that you mention it, here is my estimate....

MP Camera and print stock ~50% - 60%
Consumer and professional color C41 products ~20% (Includes Endura paper)
E6 and Kodachrome ~10%
B&W ~10%

Any error in my figures would increase C41 products due to Endura production and B&W production. That is where my figures are most lacking. I can tell you for a certain fact though that motion picture is the biggest single product at Kodak and the biggest profit maker!

PE

PE,

You are quite wrong on a number of levels.

Now, is it worth it to point it out?

You seem just impossible to deal with, you don't read my links. And your links don't have the information that you quote. Anyways you posted a 2006 10-K and misquoted it. I posted a 2007 10-K an am giving you the page number.


Try again if you like. The information you want is page 21 of the report. I would "quote" them but you cant "quote" a 10-K report.

http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acr...port07/2007_Kodak_AR_10K_2008Proxy_wCover.pdf

PE,

where do these quotes come from? 10-Ks do not read like this.

Again you are just misquoting!

"Sales from continuing operations of the CDG segment for 2006, 2005 and 2004 were (in millions) $2,920, $3,215 and $2,366, respectively." (DIGITAL)

"Sales from continuing operations of the FPG segment for 2006, 2005 and 2004 were (in millions) $4,156, $5,325 and $7,051, respectively." (ANALOG)

 

[Goza]

Goza,

You are correct. We all need to be more responsible with the accuracy of our data. PE makes mistakes now and then, I have caught them myself on occassion; some I try to correct some I don't.

But Please try to give the guy a little slack... in his defence I can only say look at his 9000 plus posts and then look at your 22 (?) when you have made that much of a contribution, perhaps such an aggressive tone MIGHT be acceptable, but at this point, it was a rather rude way to say a rather simple and basic truth... We need to get our facts straight before we start moving our fingers.

I am not the least bit interseted in the conversation in general as it makes me sick that with all that money Kodak turned their back on us, preferring to keep their eye on vulgar quantities of money instead. Hey, I am so poor it would make your hair stand on end!

Right in line with old George's philosophy.

Anyway the point I want to make is that I don't know if Ron was right or wrong here, and although you make a valid point, I would prefer it if we could all just stick to the facts.

If someone sees an error in a post point it out with immediate referance to the exact source of the correct data.

I have never known PE to knowingly post anything incorrect based on intentional malice. He may have his agendas, but bad information per se is not one of them.
IMHO.

Ray Rogers

I agree totally with sticking to the facts. But I do not agree with 9000 posts being an exception to just post out of your ass.

It is completely irresponsible and malicious. I have no tolerance for people putting wrong information on the web without taking a minute to research and gather.

I mean isn't that the point of this site? Or all we all here to waste time and just talk about abunch stuff we know nothing about?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Goza;

The figures I quoted were accurate cut and pastes from the 2006 report. The figures from the 2007 report are as follows:

"Sales from continuing operations of the CDG segment for 2007, 2006 and 2005 were (in millions) $4,631, $4,711, and $5,646, respectively."

"Sales from continuing operations of the FPG segment for 2007, 2006 and 2005 were (in millions) $1,968, $2,312, and $2,841, respectively."

Interestingly enough, the values from 2006 and 2005 changed between the two reports. I did not misquote. I used the URL from the Kodak web site that I gave above, P 12-13 and in the latter case P 6-7. So it is Kodak that is confused, not you or me.

The 2008 report has been withheld by Kodak for tax reasons.

I draw your attention to page 22, and also to page 23 of your reference which shows a $93 M dollar loss in digital and a $369 M dollar gain in analog both reported as earnings loss or gain.

This shows digital in the red for earnings and analog still the cash cow.

Now, you have been rather rude, but I point out that the figures published by Kodak do not agree with themselves from the 2006 and 2007 reports so is it any wonder that we are talking at cross purposes here? It is the Kodak data that both you and I have been quoting that appears to be wrong.

But you did ignore my comments on motion picture and the breakdown of the product line. That was mighty inconvenient of you. The figures I have are reasonably accurate, I assure you.

PE

 

[Ian Grant]

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

 

[railwayman3]

Goza,

You are correct. We all need to be more responsible with the accuracy of our data. PE makes mistakes now and then, I have caught them myself on occassion; some I try to correct some I don't.

But Please try to give the guy a little slack... in his defence I can only say look at his 9000 plus posts and then look at your 22 (?) when you have made that much of a contribution, perhaps such an aggressive tone MIGHT be acceptable, but at this point, it was a rather rude way to say a rather simple and basic truth... We need to get our facts straight before we start moving our fingers.

I am not the least bit interseted in the conversation in general as it makes me sick that with all that money Kodak turned their back on us, preferring to keep their eye on vulgar quantities of money instead. Hey, I am so poor it would make your hair stand on end!

Right in line with old George's philosophy.

Anyway the point I want to make is that I don't know if Ron was right or wrong here, and although you make a valid point, I would prefer it if we could all just stick to the facts.

If someone sees an error in a post point it out with immediate referance to the exact source of the correct data.

I have never known PE to knowingly post anything incorrect based on intentional malice. He may have his agendas, but bad information per se is not one of them.
IMHO.

Ray Rogers

Thanks for that sensible post.

I find Goza's attitude, with his accusations of talking from one's ass, and talking crap, is actually quite offensive.

I'm a relatively new member myself, but, if I see something which I don't understand or disagree with, I would have no hesitation in posting politely to point this out. Chances are I'd be wrong and learn something, but, if I were right, maybe someone else would benefit from my own, admittedly often flawed, knowledge. It's what this group is all about.

 

[Photo Engineer]

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