Fuji stopping production of Motion-Picture films in 2013

[DanielStone]

Just read a rather alarming article on Yahoo....(middle of page roundabouts):

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/disappearing-products--what-to-hoard-now-174049162.html

link to Fuji's press-release(from 9/2012) here:

http://www.fujifilm.com/news/n120913.html

So Kodak will be the only game in town now for MP stock... wonder how long that'll last? I'm stocking up on 8x10/4x5/120 Provia/Velvia 50, just in case Fuji decides to can still film production too... Not that I think they will, but it ain't the first time...


***Moderators, if this is a duplicate thread for some reason of something someone else posted elsewhere here on APUG, please feel free to do what you want with this***

 

[AgX]

I guess this is known by now on Apug.


However:

So Kodak will be the only game in town now for MP stock...

This is not true.
Filmotec and Foma still offer cine camera-film. Agfa and Filmotec offer cine print-films.

Several small enterprises re-convert film to small-gauge formats including Super-8 and Single-8.


Concerning the manufacture of CN cine-camera film Kodak indeed is the only one left.

 

[cepwin]

I'm actually more concerned they'll get out of making polaroid pack camera film as they're the only ones making the stuff. I suppose "impossible project" could get in that game but they're already charging > $20 US for a eight exposure pack of the 600/SX-70 film. At least their cameras that produce credit card sized prints are apparently selling so hopefully they'll stay or at the very least sell their film division to someone else who want to make it.

 

[StoneNYC]

I'm actually more concerned they'll get out of making polaroid pack camera film as they're the only ones making the stuff. I suppose "impossible project" could get in that game but they're already charging > $20 US for a eight exposure pack of the 600/SX-70 film. At least their cameras that produce credit card sized prints are apparently selling so hopefully they'll stay or at the very least sell their film division to someone else who want to make it.

I've spoken to TIP(the impossible project) they will NOT be making. Type 100 in that size.

The machines that did make it were destroyed or pieced out before they could afford to buy them, and re-designing is too costly for such a small company, and the manufacturing production line was too big to fit in their factory building for the small amount of runs they do.

That's what they told me.

There's a group in Boston, MA working on type 55 (neg/pos) but they don't seem to be doing large scale just hand made small scale stuff that isn't quite up to par... Yet..

Sucks I agree would be nice...


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MartinP]

A few months ago didn't we read that Kodak was contractually obligated to provide 35mm stock for cine-camera use until 2014? The tone of the information was that supply after that previously contracted date was in question. It was unclear if print-positive material was included, but can the whole world of cinema's go digital that quickly, given the high capital cost of replacing film-projectors with digital? (And no, I can't find the article which I am busy trying to remember, dohhhh.) So it looks as though the contracts signed by Fuji finish sooner than those signed by Kodak.

EDIT:
The information was from part of the bankruptcy renegotiations. Reported in August 2012 here.

Highlights are basically....

According to a court filing this week, Kodak says it has managed to have its supply agreements with studios rewritten to provide:

Higher 2012 pricing;
Material share commitments, subject to certain exceptions;
Extension of termination dates to 2014 or 2015;
Generally potential annual price increase after 2012 (excluding commodities) versus existing contracts;
Commodities price increase generally with no cap or commodity price indexing; and
A sunset clause allowing Kodak to exit motion picture film manufacturing with 180 days’ notice.


This leaves Kodak as the sole cine-film manufacturer in a few months, but with very reduced obligations going forward.

 

[AgX]

... as sole CN cine camera film manufacturer...

An exit of Kodak out of that business does not necessarily mean the end of such film manufacture at all. Fuji decided that at this moment it is not profitable for them to engage in this field any more. They could re-start production if it seemed profitable for them. They did manufacture such film only on a single batch mode anyway. The same for Agfa.



However, as commercial moving pictures production is meanwhile interwoven with digital processing, the classic film systems from camera- via intermediate- to print-film, with propriatory gradation-, dye- etc. balancing are obsolete anyway.

 

[StoneNYC]

50% of all cinema is still shot on film and 80% of all of it even if shot ok digital is backed up on film....

Film in the movie industry is long from gone.

The industry is slow to change and they recognize the need for film because digital hard drives aren't reliable and are prone to huge failures so film is still highly used and will be for a LONG time, longer than stills film will be made I would think...

Those numbers are based on what all the DP's (Director of Photography) I've spoken to about it say...




~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RattyMouse]

I'm actually more concerned they'll get out of making polaroid pack camera film as they're the only ones making the stuff. I suppose "impossible project" could get in that game but they're already charging > $20 US for a eight exposure pack of the 600/SX-70 film. At least their cameras that produce credit card sized prints are apparently selling so hopefully they'll stay or at the very least sell their film division to someone else who want to make it.

Instax cameras from Fujifilm are popular all over Asia so I would not worry too much about them disappearing.

 

[ajuk]

Ok this is really surprising, are they not a big player, surly use of film is still common place enough to warrant Fuji continuing to make it? Also what about Imax there's no digital equivalent to that yet.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Kodak is the biggest supplier of MP films today even with their problems.

Even so, the production is falling and with Fuji having a very minor share, well.........

PE

 

[ajuk]

nt

 

[ajuk]

Fair enough, although I always thought that the reason R&D was spent on improving film was because it filtered down from movie film, was this the case with Fuji?

Am I right about Imax though?

 

[Photo Engineer]

R&D dollars did not filter down from any one source. In fact, even today the second biggest seller by EK and Fuji are their color papers. At one time, I would guess that color paper and movie film both sold equally well. That was probably in the 70s.

PE

 

[ajuk]

I was under the impression that the reason why technical improvements had been made in film emulsions in the last few years have been made because technological advancements in motion picture stocks, where it was still quite competitive, had filtered down to still films. I also thought that Fuji would have been selling more motion picture film than still film, no?

 

[StoneNYC]

I was under the impression that the reason why technical improvements had been made in film emulsions in the last few years have been made because technological advancements in motion picture stocks, where it was still quite competitive, had filtered down to still films. I also thought that Fuji would have been selling more motion picture film than still film, no?

The movie industry is VERY slow to change, a lot of that has to do with money. For example, Hollywood in general has been using Kodak film stock more than any other. Even if Fuji was somehow slightly better, they wouldn't risk switching systems because the risk of processing a whole movie and having the result come out differently than planned because of a new and unfamiliar film is too great a risk. So Kodak cornered that market long ago.

I work in the industry and though I'm not involved in that side per-se I work with those guys enough to know I'm pretty much on target with this statement.

They would prefer to use something that is tested even if of lesser quality because they can guarantee the result. With $100,000,000 dollars on the table, changing films isn't easy.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, actually, the image stability improvements moved from color paper (which drove image stability for years) back to MP print films and camera originals for archiving the original color footage. You see, the archiving of digital images became very difficult and expensive. You will see that both EK and Fuji have come out with new archival MP films.

Also, Fuji's contribution to MP was miniscule compared to EK, but in terms of their overall production it was large. EK was by far the biggest supplier.

PE

 

[StoneNYC]

Well, actually, the image stability improvements moved from color paper (which drove image stability for years) back to MP print films and camera originals for archiving the original color footage. You see, the archiving of digital images became very difficult and expensive. You will see that both EK and Fuji have come out with new archival MP films.

Also, Fuji's contribution to MP was miniscule compared to EK, but in terms of their overall production it was large. EK was by far the biggest supplier.

PE

IS

 

[wildbill]

The movie industry is VERY slow to change, a lot of that has to do with money. For example, Hollywood in general has been using Kodak film stock more than any other. Even if Fuji was somehow slightly better, they wouldn't risk switching systems because the risk of processing a whole movie and having the result come out differently than planned because of a new and unfamiliar film is too great a risk. So Kodak cornered that market long ago.

I work in the industry and though I'm not involved in that side per-se I work with those guys enough to know I'm pretty much on target with this statement.

They would prefer to use something that is tested even if of lesser quality because they can guarantee the result. With $100,000,000 dollars on the table, changing films isn't easy.

Plenty of tv shows, movies, and commercials have been shot on fujifilm. Often it was due to cost savings but also for the particular look being sought. No one shoots a "new film" for a project w/o testing so there aren't suprises. Kodak changes thie emulsions quite frequently and no one would shoot it for a serious job w/o testing (which is always done on feature films). kodak's films were inferior to fuji's, cinematographers wouldn't switch?
Both companies make/made some great films but choosing one over the other has nothing to do with "changing systems."

 

[StoneNYC]

Plenty of tv shows, movies, and commercials have been shot on fujifilm. Often it was due to cost savings but also for the particular look being sought. No one shoots a "new film" for a project w/o testing so there aren't suprises. Kodak changes thie emulsions quite frequently and no one would shoot it for a serious job w/o testing (which is always done on feature films). kodak's films were inferior to fuji's, cinematographers wouldn't switch?
Both companies make/made some great films but choosing one over the other has nothing to do with "changing systems."

you're right... sort of ... it's about how MANAGEMENT views it... all they know is they have always used Kodak... so changing doesn't mean much to the money men, they just want to stick with what works... it's a slow mentality of change... just how the movie industry works. We should be glad... if they weren't so slow to change, they wouldn't use ANY film lol

 

[Photo Engineer]

The cinematographers and SFX people used to visit Kodak research and show us what was wrong with the films and how to improve them in terms of speed and curve shape (using the best examples).

To illustrate, the Dmax of ECN and the interneg films were just fine until all of these SF movies came along and then ILM found that there was not enough black for outer space SFX, and so space was gray! They used a work around, but came to EK to plead for more Dmax, which meant a longer tone scale. We did it.

Along the way, they showed us outcuts from some SF movies with SFX "bloopers". They also ran some footage at slow speed to show "bloopers" that were left in the final films, because the human eye could not see them at projection speed.

Anyhow, just another reason to use Kodak film... The cooperative effort with Hollywood people. We even had a KRL office in Hollywood staffed by 2 or more KRL engineers to help them.

Fuji did not!

PE

 

[cmacd123]

If you follow American Cinematograoher, you will see in the atricles on some movies a few years back where the decison to use Fuji Print stock for wide release was made on teh basis of Price. Fuji did have some Unique stocks like a 500D where Kodak only had (several) 500T offerings. Last new Fuji stock I have seen talk about was the VIVID 160T. Aimed at Music Videos as an more forgiving way to get eye poping colour compaired to Ektachrome 100D - 5285/7285

 

[Henning Serger]

R&D dollars did not filter down from any one source. In fact, even today the second biggest seller by EK and Fuji are their color papers.

PE

Ron, Fujifilm is now producing much more RA-4 color paper (on a m² basis) then film. RA-4 demand has been much more stable than film demand (a very high volume of prints from digital files are printed on RA-4 by high volume labs like CeWe and Fuji Eurocolor; that compensates to a significant extent the lower demand from the film side). In some major markets they see even increasing demand for RA-4 products. That's why they continue R&D and introduce new papers. Like the silver-gelatin papers for photobooks introduced at Photokina (I've seen them there, excellent quality).

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Photo Engineer]

Henning, you are correct on a footage bases, but due to the price of the MP films, and the price of the paper, you will find that the dollar value or volume of MP film is larger than that of paper. At least that is my current estimate.

PE

 

[Henning Serger]

Henning, you are correct on a footage bases, but due to the price of the MP films, and the price of the paper, you will find that the dollar value or volume of MP film is larger than that of paper. At least that is my current estimate.

PE

Yes, I mean on a footage bases. Total output in m².
RA-4 paper is indeed extremely cheap, that is right. Possible because of the very high production volume.
Here in Germany you can get prints on RA-4 paper at the drugstore chains for only 1 Cent (!!).
You can imagine that there is not much room for attractive margins at such extremely low prices.

Best regards,
Henning